Print
Download XMLAanvullend protocol bij de Verdragen van Genève van 12 augustus 1949, betreffende de aanvaarding van een aanvullend onderscheidend embleem (Protocol III)
Partijen met voorbehouden, verklaringen en bezwaren
| Partij | Voorbehoud / verklaring | Bezwaren |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | Ja | Nee |
| Israël | Ja | Nee |
| Moldavië | Ja | Nee |
| Turkije | Ja | Nee |
| Verenigd Koninkrijk | Ja | Ja |
| Verenigde Staten van Amerika | Ja | Nee |
| Zweden | Ja | Nee |
| Zwitserland | Ja | Nee |
Canada
26-11-2007
Article 6(2) provides inter alia that the High Contracting Parties may permit prior
users of the third Protocol emblem, or of any sign constituting an imitation thereof,
to continue such use, provided that "the rights to such use were acquired before the
adoption of this Protocol". Given that Canadian legislation enacted to implement Protocol
III does not have retroactive application and will enter into force on the date of
Canada's ratification of Protocol III, Canada will permit prior users of the third
Protocol emblem, or of any sign constituting an imitation thereof, to continue such
use, provided that the rights to such use were acquired before the date of Canada's
ratification of Protocol III.
21-01-2015
L'Ambassade du Canada [...] a I'honneur de se référer [...] a la communication du Conseil fédéral suisse du 9 janvier 2015 [...] concernant Ie Protocole II et le Protocole III. L'Ambassade du Canada constate que cette communication a été faite par le Conseil fédéral suisse en sa qualité de dépositaire du Protocole II et du Protocole III. L'Ambassade du Canada tient à noter que le dépositaire joue un rôle de nature technique et administrative, et qu'il appartient aux États parties à un traité, et non au dépositaire, de se prononcer sur toute question de droit rattachée aux instruments diffusés par le dépositaire. Dans ce contexte, l'Ambassade du Canada note que la "Palestine" ne remplit pas les critères voulus pour être considérée comme un État en droit international et n'est donc pas reconnue comme tel par le Canada. Par conséquent, pour éviter toute ambigüité, l'Ambassade du Canada tient à énoncer sa position selon laquelle la "Palestine" n'a pas qualité pour adhérer au Protocole II et au Protocole III, de sorte que sa prétendue adhésion à ces Protocoles n'a aucune valeur juridique ni aucune incidence sur les relations conventionnelles du Canada avec l'"État de Palestine".
Israël
22-11-2007
The Government of Israel declares that while respecting the inviolability of the additional
distinctive emblem provided for in the "Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions
of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem
(Protocol III)', it is the understanding of the Government of Israel that the ratification
or the implementation of this protocol does not affect any rights acquired pursuant
to reservations made by Israel to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.
05-11-2008
The Embassy of the State of Israel presents its compliments to the Swiss Federal Department
of Foreign Affairs and has the honour to refer to the declaration made by Israel upon
ratification of the Third Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. In response
to questions raised in relation to this declaration, the State of Israel wishes to
confirm that this declaration is not intended to enable Israel to derogate from any
of the provisions of the Protocol. It also recognizes that under the terms of the
Protocol, the Red Crystal, when used as a protective emblem, may not incorporate any
additional emblems or combine them as part of the protective emblem.
16-01-2015
The Embassy of Israel [...] refers to the communication by the depositary dated 9 January 2015, regarding the Palestinian request to accede to [Protocol III]. 'Palestine' does not satisfy the criteria for statehood under international law and lacks the legal capacity to join the aforesaid convention both under general international law and the terms of bilateral Israeli-Palestinian agreements. The Government of Israel does not recognize 'Palestine' as a State, and wishes to place on record, for the sake of clarity, its position that it does not consider 'Palestine' a party to the Protocol and regards the Palestinian request for accession as being without legal validity and without effect upon Israel's treaty relations under the Protocol.
Moldavië
19-08-2008
Until the full re-establishment of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova,
the provisions of the Convention will be applied only on the territory controlled
effectively by the authorities of the Republic of Moldova.
Turkije
07-12-2006
Regarding the "Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and
relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III)" and taking
into
consideration the references to the 1977 Additional Protocols I and II thereof, the
Republic
of Turkey declares that it is not party to the Additional Protocols I and II.
Verenigd Koninkrijk
15-06-2011
Her Britannic Majesty's Embassy has the honor to declare, on behalf of the Government
of the United Kingdom, that its ratification of Protocol III extends to the following
territories for whose international relations it is responsible: Anguilla; Bailiwick
of Guernsey; Bermuda; British Antarctic Territory; British Indian Ocean Territory;
Cayman Islands; Falkland Islands; Isle of Man; Montserrat; Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie
and Oeno Islands; South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; St Helena, Ascension
and Tristan da Cunha; Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia; Turks and Caicos
Islands; Virgin Islands.
Bezwaar Argentinië, 04-08-2011
The Argentine Republic rejects the British claim to extend the application of the
Protocol to the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
The Protocol applies to the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich
Islands as being an integral part of the territory of the Argentine Republic, by virtue
of the ratification of the Protocol by the Argentine Government on 16 March 2011.
In relation to the question of the Falkland Islands, the United Nations General Assembly
adopted the resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21,
41/40, 42/19 and 43/25, recognizing the existence of a dispute over sovereignty and
requesting the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland to re-initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully
and definitively the dispute, with the good offices of the Secretary-General of the
United Nations, who will inform the General Assembly on the progress made. The United
Nations Special Committee on decolonization has repeatedly expressed the same view,
most recently in the resolutions adopted on 24 June 2010 and 21 June 2011. Likewise,
the General Assembly of the Organization of American States has adopted, on 8 June
2010 and on 7 June 2011, new declarations on the question in similar terms.
The Argentine Republic reaffirms its right of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands,
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime space.
Bezwaar Mauritius, 10-01-2020
[...] has the honour to register its strong objection against the extension by the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the so-called "British Indian
Ocean Territory", of the Agreements listed at Annex and in respect of which the Government
of Switzerland is the depositary.
The Government of the Republic of Mauritius considers that by extending these Agreements
to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory", the United Kingdom purported to
exercise sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago - a claim which is untenable under
international law.
The Government of the Republic of Mauritius wishes to reiterate in emphatic terms
that it does not recognize the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory". The fact
that the Chagos Archipelago is, and has always been, part of the territory of the
Republic of Mauritius, and that the United Kingdom has never had sovereignty over
the Chagos Archipelago, has been authoritatively established by the International
Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019, on the Legal Consequences
of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965.
In this authoritative legal determination, the Court declared that the decolonization
of the Republic of Mauritius had not been lawfully completed in 1968, since the Chagos
Archipelago had been unlawfully detached in 1965, in violation of the right of self-determination
of peoples and the Charter of the United Nations, as applied and interpreted in accordance
with UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, resolution 2066
(XX) of 16 December 1965, resolution 2232 (XXI) of 20 December 1966 and resolution
2357 (XXII) of 19 December 1967. Accordingly, it went on to hold that the United Kingdom's
ongoing administration of the Chagos Archipelago, as the so-called "British lndian
Ocean Territory", was an internationally wrongful act, of a continuing nature, that
engaged the State responsibility of the United Kingdom. It determined that the United
Kingdom is under a legal obligation to terminate its unlawful colonial administration
"as rapidly as possible".
The Court further determined that all UN Member States have an obligation to cooperate
with the United Nations in facilitating the completion of the decolonization of the
Republic of Mauritius as rapidly as possible, including an obligation not to support
the continuing wrongful conduct of the United Kingdom in maintaining its colonial
administration in the Chagos Archipelago.
On 22 May 2019, the General Assembly, by an overwhelming majority of 116 votes to
6, adopted resolution 73/295. By this resolution, it endorsed the Court's Advisory
Opinion, affirmed that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory
of the Republic of Mauritius, and demanded that the United Kingdom terminate its unlawful
colonial administration within a maximum of six months, that is, by no later than
22 November 2019. That deadline has now expired.
Moreover, the General Assembly in its resolution called upon Member States to "cooperate
with the United Nations to ensure the completion of the decolonization of Mauritius
as rapidly as possible" and to refrain from conduct that might impede or delay the
completion of decolonization. It further called upon the United Nations and all its
specialized agencies to recognize that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part
of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, to support the decolonization of the
Republic of Mauritius as rapidly as possible, and to refrain from impeding that process
by recognizing the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory". Lastly, the resolution
also called upon "all other international, regional and intergovernmental organizations,
including those established by treaty," to recognize that the Chagos Archipelago forms
an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, to support its speedy
decolonization, and to "refrain from impeding that process" by recognizing the so-called
"British Indian Ocean Territory".
The Republic of Mauritius has, over the years, consistently asserted, and hereby reasserts,
its full sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. The Government of the Republic of
Mauritius therefore unequivocally protests against the extension by the United Kingdom
of the Agreements listed at Annex to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory"
and against the purported exercise by the United Kingdom of any sovereignty, rights
or jurisdiction within the territory of the Republic of Mauritius.
For the above stated reasons, which arise from established principles of international
law as authoritatively interpreted and applied by the International Court of Justice
and endorsed by the UN General Assembly, the Government of the Republic of Mauritius
does not recognize the extension by the United Kingdom of the Agreements listed at
Annex to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory", reserves all its rights in
this regard, and calls upon all States Parties to the Agreements listed at Annex to
reject the United Kingdom's extension of these Agreements to the so-called "British
Indian Ocean Territory".
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade of the
Republic of Mauritius kindly requests that the present objection be duly recorded,
circulated and registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations pursuant to Article
102 of the Charter of the United Nations.
07-01-2013
Her Britannic Majesty's Embassy has the honor to declare, on behalf of the Government
of the United Kingdom, that its ratification of the above Protocols extends to the
Bailiwick of Jersey, in addition to the territories to which they have already been
extended.
In this respect, both the statements lodged on 2 July 2002 in respect of the extension
of Protocol I and the Government's declaration of 17 May 1999 in respect of recognition
of the competence of the International Fact Finding Commission shall also apply.
Verenigde Staten van Amerika
21-01-2015
The Embassy of the United States of America [...] refers to the Federal Department's notification, dated January 9, 2015, regarding the purported accession of the 'State of Palestine' to [Protocol III] for which the Swiss Federal Council is depositary. The Government of the United States of America does not believe the 'State of Palestine' qualifies as a sovereign State and does not recognize it as such. Accession to Protocol III is limited to sovereign States. Therefore, the Government of the United States of America believes that the 'State of Palestine' is not qualified to accede to Protocol III and affirms that it will not consider itself to be in a treaty relationship with the 'State of Palestine' under Protocol III.
Zweden
26-11-2008
The Government of Sweden has closely examined the declaration made by the Government
of Israel on 22 November 2007, when ratifying the Protocol Additional III to the Geneva
Conventions of 12 August 1949, with subsequent clarification in its declaration on
5 November 2008 as well as the following communication made by [Switzerland] on 7
November 2008. In the light of these communications it is the understanding of Sweden
that Israel will adhere to the Protocol in its entirety and solely use the Red Crystal
as its distinctive emblem. It is the expectation of Sweden that all states, in accordance
with the object and purpose of Protocol III, join in the effort to disseminate the
knowledge of the Protocol and to strengthen the respect of the new additional emblem.
Zwitserland
07-11-2008
The Federal Department of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy
of the State of Israel and acknowledges receipt of the Embassy's note verbale dated
3.11.08 by which the Government of the State of Israel clarifies its declaration made
at the ratification, on 22 November 2007, of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva
Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive
Emblem (Protocol III). The Federal Department thanks the Embassy for this note which
makes it clear that the State of Israel respects the Protocol III in its entirety
and will therefore solely use the Additional Emblem (Red Crystal) as the distinctive
emblem in accordance with said Protocol.