Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

Parties with reservations, declarations and objections

Party	Reservations / Declarations	Objections
Bahamas	Yes	No
Bahrain	Yes	Yes
Belarus	Yes	Yes
Botswana	Yes	No
Bulgaria	Yes	Yes
Cambodia	Yes	Yes
Canada	Yes	No
China	Yes	Yes
Cuba	Yes	Yes
Czech Republic	Yes	No
Egypt	Yes	Yes
France	Yes	No
Hungary	Yes	Yes
Iraq	Yes	No
Israel	Yes	No
Japan	Yes	No
Kuwait	Yes	Yes
Libya	Yes	Yes
Malta	Yes	Yes
Mongolia	Yes	No
Morocco	Yes	Yes
Mozambique	Yes	No
Nepal	Yes	No
Oman	Yes	No
Palestine	Yes	No
Qatar	Yes	Yes
Romania	Yes	No
Russian Federation	Yes	Yes
Saudi Arabia	Yes	Yes
Slovakia	Yes	No
Sudan	Yes	Yes
Syria	Yes	Yes
Ukraine	Yes	Yes
United Arab Emirates	Yes	No
United States of America	Yes	No
Venezuela	Yes	No
Vietnam	Yes	Yes
Yemen	Yes	Yes

Bahamas

08-06-1977

[T]he Government of the Bahamas declared that it wishes to maintain the objections made by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland prior to the independence of the Bahamas.

Bahrain

02-11-1971

With respect to paragraph 3 of article 27, relating to the `Diplomatic Bag', the Government of the State of Bahrain reserves its right to open the diplomatic bag if there are serious grounds for presuming that it contains articles the import or export of which is prohibited by law.

Objection Haïti, 09-05-1972

[Declaration made before accession]
The Haitian Government considers that the reservation expressed by the Government of Bahrain with regard to the inviolability of diplomatic correspondence may destroy the effectiveness of the Convention, one of the main aims of which is precisely to put an end to certain practices impeding the performance of the functions assigned to diplomatic agents.

Objection Russian Federation, 06-06-1972

(...) This reservation is contrary to the principle of the inviolability of the diplomatic bag, which is recognized in international practice, and is therefore unacceptable.

Objection Ukraine, 28-07-1972

The reservation made by the Government of Bahrain to the above-mentioned Convention is contrary to the principle of the inviolability of the diplomatic bag, which is generally recognized in international practice, and is therefore unacceptable to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

Objection Bulgaria, 22-09-1972

The Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria cannot regard the reservation made by the Bahraini Government with respect to article 27, paragraph 3, of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations as valid.

Objection United Kingdom, 13-03-1973

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland wish to put on record that they do not regard as valid the reservation to paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by the Government of Bahrain.

Objection United States of America, 02-07-1974

The Government of the United States of America ... states its objection to reservations with respect to paragraph 3 of article 27 by Bahrain (...). The Government of the United States, however, considers the Convention as continuing in force between it and the above-mentioned [State] except for the provisions to which the reservations are addressed in each case.

Objection Belgium, 28-01-1975

The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium objects to the reservations made with respect to article 27, paragraph 3, by Bahrain (...). The Government nevertheless considers that the Convention remains in force as between it and the aforementioned [State] (...), except in respect of the provisions which in each case are the subject of the said reservations.

Objection Germany, 04-02-1975

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers as incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention the reservations made by the Government of Bahrain concerning article 27, paragraph 3 of the Convention.

Objection Hungary, 07-07-1975

The reservation made by the Government of Bahrain to article 27, paragraph 3, of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is contrary to the principle of the inviolability of the diplomatic bag which is generally recognized in the international practice, and is incompatible with the objectives of the Convention.
Therefore, the Hungarian People's Republic does not recognize this reservation as valid.

Objection Poland, 03-11-1975

The reservation made by the Government of Bahrain to article 27, paragraph 3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, done at Vienna on 18 April 1961, is not compatible with the object and purpose of this Convention. It is contrary to fundamental principles of diplomatic international law. Therefore, the Polish People's Republic does not recognize this reservation as valid.

Objection Bahamas, 17-03-1977

The Government of the Bahamas wish to put on record that they do not regard as valid the reservation to paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by the Government of Bahrain.

Objection Mongolia, 18-01-1978

Reservation made by the Government of Bahrain to paragraph 3, article 27 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is incompatible with the very object and purpose of the Convention. Therefore the Government of the Mongolian People's Republic does not consider itself bound by the above-mentioned reservation.

Objection Canada, 16-03-1978

The Government of Canada also desires to place on record that it does not regard as valid the reservations to paragraph 3 of article 27 of the Convention made by the Government of Bahrain (...).

Objection Australia, 22-02-1983

Australia does not regard as valid the reservations made by (...) the State of Bahrain (...) in respect of treatment of the diplomatic bag under article 27 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 07-09-1984

The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept the declaration by the State of Bahrain concerning article 27, paragraph 3 of the Convention. It takes the view that this provision remains in force in relations between it and the State of Bahrain in accordance with international customary law. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is nevertheless prepared to agree to the following arrangement on a basis of reciprocity: If the authorities of the receiving state have serious grounds for supposing that the diplomatic bag contains something which pursuant to article 27, paragraph 4 of the Convention may not be sent in the diplomatic bag, they may demand that the bag be opened in the presence of the representative of the diplomat mission concerned. If the authorities of the sending state refuse to comply with such a request, the diplomatic bag shall be sent back to the place of origin.

Objection Thailand, 23-01-1985

The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand does not regard as valid the reservation made by the State of Bahrain in respect of paragraph 3 of article 27 of the Convention.

Objection Japan, 27-01-1987

With respect to paragraphs 3 and 4 of article 27 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961, the Government of Japan believes that the protection of diplomatic correspondence by means of diplomatic bags constitutes an important element of the Convention, and any reservation intended to allow a receiving State to open diplomatic bags without the consent of the sending State is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Therefore the Government of Japan does not regard as valid the reservations concerning article 27 of the Convention made by the Government of Bahrain (...) on 2 November 1971 (...). The Government of Japan also desires to record that the above-stated position is applicable to any reservations to the same effect to be made in the future by other countries.

Belarus

14-05-1964

Reservation concerning article 11, paragraph 1:
In accordance with the principle of the equality of rights of States, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic considers that any difference of opinion regarding the size of a diplomatic mission should be settled by agreement between the sending State and the receiving State.
Declaration concerning articles 48 and 50:
The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic considers it necessary to draw attention to the discriminatory nature of articles 48 and 50 of the Convention, under the terms of which a number of States are precluded from acceding to the Convention. The Convention deals with matters which affect the interests of all States and should therefore be open for accession by all States. In accordance with the principle of sovereign equality no State has the right to bar other States from accession to a Convention of this nature.

Objection United Kingdom, 01-09-1964

(...) the Government of the United Kingdom do not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Convention made by the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Germany, 11-11-1964

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers as incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention the reservations made by (...) the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) concerning article 11 of the Convention.

Objection Luxembourg, 18-01-1965

With reference to the reservation and declaration made by the Governments of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) upon ratification of the Convention, the Government of Luxembourg regrets that it cannot accept that reservation or that declaration which tends to modify the effect of certain provisions of the Convention.

Objection Canada, 26-05-1966

The Government of Canada does not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Convention made by the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) as modifying any rights or obligations under this paragraph.

Objection Malta, 07-03-1967

The Government of Malta does not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 made by the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Australia, 14-03-1968

The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia does not regard the statements concerning paragraph (1) of Article 11 made by the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) as modifying any rights or obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Belgium, 02-05-1968

The Belgian Government considers the statement made by the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 to be incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention and does not regard it as modifying any rights or obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Denmark, 02-10-1968

The Government of Denmark does not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by (...) the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, (...) as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Greece, 16-07-1970

The Government of Greece cannot accept the reservation to paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Convention made by (...) the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (...).

Objection New Zealand, 23-09-1970

The Government of New Zealand does not regard the statements concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by (...) the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

Objection France, 31-12-1970

The Government of the French Republic does not regard the statements concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 made by the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) as modifying any rights or obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Tonga, 31-01-1973

In its notification of succession, the Government of Tonga has indicated that it adopts the objections made by the United Kingdom respecting the reservations and statements made by (...) Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) [to] the said Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Objection Bahamas, 17-03-1977

...) the Government of the Bahamas do not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Convention made by the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 07-09-1984

The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept the declarations by (...) the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) concerning article 11, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Kingdom of the Netherlands takes the view that this provision remains in force in relations between it and (...) [the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic] in accordance with international customary law.

Objection Thailand, 23-01-1985

The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand does not regard the statements concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Convention made by (...) the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

Botswana

11-04-1969

Subject to the reservation that article 37 of the Convention should be applicable on the basis of reciprocity only.

Bulgaria

18-04-1961

Reservation concerning article 11, paragraph 1:
In accordance with the principle of the equality of States, the People's Republic of Bulgaria considers that any difference of opinion regarding the size of a diplomatic mission should be settled by agreement between the sending State and the receiving State.
Declaration concerning articles 48 and 50:
The People's Republic of Bulgaria considers it necessary to draw attention to the discriminatory nature of articles 48 and 50 of the Convention, under the terms of which a number of States are precluded from acceding to the Convention. The provisions of these articles are inconsistent with the very nature of the Convention, which is universal in character and should be open for accession by all States. In accordance with the principle of equality, no State has the right to bar other States from accession to a convention of this kind.

Objection United Kingdom, 29-03-1968

The Government of the United Kingdom do not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Convention made by the Government of Bulgaria as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Germany, 09-07-1968

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers as incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention the reservations made by the Government of Bulgaria concerning article 11, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Objection Denmark, 02-10-1968

The Government of Denmark does not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by the People's Republic of Bulgaria, (...) as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Greece, 16-07-1970

The Government of Greece cannot accept the reservation to paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Convention made by Bulgaria (...).

Objection New Zealand, 23-09-1970

The Government of New Zealand does not regard the statements concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by the People's Republic of Bulgaria (...) as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

Objection France, 31-12-1970

The Government of the French Republic does not regard the statements concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 made by (...) the People's Republic of Bulgaria (..) as modifying any rights or obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Tonga, 31-01-1973

In its notification of succession, the Government of Tonga has indicated that it adopts the objections made by the United Kingdom respecting the reservations and statements made by (...) Bulgaria (...) [to] the said Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Objection Bahamas, 17-03-1977

The Government of the Bahamas do not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Convention made by the Government of Bulgaria as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Canada, 16-03-1978

The Government of Canada does not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Convention made by the Government of (...) Bulgaria, (...) as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 07-09-1984

The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept the declarations by the People's Republic of Bulgaria (...) concerning article 11, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Kingdom of the Netherlands takes the view that this provision remains in force in relations between it and (...) [Bulgaria] in accordance with international customary law.

Objection Thailand, 23-01-1985

The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand does not regard the statements concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Convention made by the People's Republic of Bulgaria (...) as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

24-10-2002

"...[U]pon ratification of the 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 ratification,the Permanent Mission of Bulgaria to the United Nations stated that its Government considered the said ratification as null and void for 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.".

Cambodia

31-08-1965

The diplomatic immunities and privileges provided for in article 37, paragraph 2, of the afore-mentioned Convention, recognized and admitted in customary law and in the practice of States in favour of heads of missions and members of diplomatic staff of the mission, cannot be granted by the Royal Government of Cambodia for the benefit of other categories of mission staff, including administrative and technical staff

Objection Germany, 16-03-1967

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers as incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention the reservations made by the Government of Cambodia concerning article 37, paragraph 2 of the Convention.

Objection Australia, 14-03-1968

The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia declares that it does not recognize as valid the reservations to paragraph 2, Article 37, of the Convention made (...) by Cambodia.

Objection Belgium, 02-05-1968

The Belgian Government (...) considers the reservation made by (...) the Kingdom of Cambodia to paragraph 2 of article 37 to be incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention.

Objection United Kingdom, 19-06-1968

The Government of the United Kingdom do not regard as valid the reservation to paragraph 2 of article 37 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by the Government of Cambodia.

Objection Denmark, 02-10-1968

Further, the Government of Denmark does not regard as valid the reservation to paragraph 2 of Article 37 made by (...) Cambodia (...). This statement shall not be regarded as precluding the entry into force of the Convention between Denmark and the above-mentioned countries.

Objection Greece, 16-07-1970

The Government of Greece cannot accept (...) the reservation to paragraph 2 of article 37 of the Convention made by Cambodia (...).

Objection New Zealand, 23-09-1970

(...) the Government of New Zealand does not accept the reservation to paragraph 2 of Article 37 of the Convention made by Cambodia (...).

Objection France, 31-12-1970

The Government of the French Republic does not regard as valid the reservations to article 37, paragraph 2, made by the Government of Cambodia (...).

Objection Tonga, 31-01-1973

In its notification of succession, the Government of Tonga has indicated that it adopts the objections made by the United Kingdom respecting the reservations and statements made by (...) the Khmer Republic (...) [to] the said Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Objection United States of America, 02-07-1974

The Government of the United States of America ... states its objection to reservations (...) by Cambodia (...). The Government of the United States, however, considers the Convention as continuing in force between it and the (...) above-mentioned [State] except for the provisions to which the reservations are addressed in each case.

Objection Belgium, 28-01-1975

The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium objects to the reservations made (...) with respect to article 37, paragraph 2, by (...) Cambodia (...). The Government nevertheless considers that the Convention remains in force as between it and the aforementioned [State] (...), except in respect of the provisions which in each case are the subject of the said reservations.

Objection Bahamas, 17-03-1977

The Government of the Bahamas do not regard as valid the reservation to paragraph 2 of article 37 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by the Government of Cambodia.

Objection Canada, 16-03-1978

(...) the Government of Canada does not regard as valid the reservations to paragraph 2 of article 37 of the Convention which have been made by the Government of (...) Cambodia (...).

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 07-09-1984

The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept the declarations by (...) the Khmer Republic (...) concerning article 37, paragraph 2 of the Convention. It takes the view that these provisions remain in force in relations between it and (...) [the Khmer Republic] in accordance with international customary law.

Objection Thailand, 23-01-1985

The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand does not regard as valid the reservations and declarations with respect to paragraph 2 of article 37 of the Convention made by Democratic Kampuchea (...).

Canada

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 Diplomatic Relations, and the Secretary-General's communication of 9 April 2014, numbered C.N.176.2014.TREATIES-III.3, 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 Diplomatic Relations. 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 Diplomatic Relations, 'Palestine' is not able to accede to this convention, and that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations does not enter into force, or have an effect on Canada's treaty relations, with respect to the 'State of Palestine'.

China

25-11-1975

The Government of the People's Republic of China holds reservations on the provisions about nuncios and the representative of the Holy See in articles 14 and 16 (...).

Objection Ireland, 17-01-1978

The Government of Ireland object to the reservations made by the Government of the People's Republic of China concerning the provisions relating to Nuncios and the representative of the Holy See in articles 14 and 16 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Government of Ireland do not regard these reservations as modifying any rights or obligations under those articles.

Cuba

26-09-1963

The Revolutionary Government of Cuba makes an explicit reservation in respect of the provisions of articles 48 and 50 of the Convention, because it considers that, in view of the nature of the contents of the Convention and the subject it concerns, all free and sovereign States have the right to participate in it: for that reason, the Revolutionary Government of Cuba favours facilitating the admission of all countries of the International Community, without any distinction based on the extent of a State's territory, the number of its inhabitants or its social, economic or political system.

Objection Guatemala, 23-12-1963

The Government of Guatemala rejects formally the reservations to articles 48 and 50 of the Convention made by the Government of Cuba in its instrument of ratification.

Czech Republic

16-02-1993

In conformity with the valid principles of international law and to the extent defined by it, the Czech Republic, as a successor State to the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, considers itself bound, as of 1 January 1993, i.e., the date of the dissolution of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, by multilateral international treaties to which the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic was a party on that date, including reservations and declarations to their provisions made earlier by the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic.

Egypt

09-06-1964

1. Paragraph 2 of article 37 shall not apply.

Objection United Kingdom, 01-09-1964

The Government of the United Kingdom do not regard as valid the reservation to paragraph 2 of article 37 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by the United Arab Republic.

Objection Germany, 16-03-1967

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers as incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention the reservations made by the United Arab Republic concerning article 37, paragraph 2 of the Convention.

Objection Australia, 14-03-1968

The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia declares that it does not recognize as valid the reservations to paragraph 2, Article 37, of the Convention made by the United Arab Republic (...).

Objection Belgium, 02-05-1968

The Belgian Government (...) considers the reservation made by the United Arab Republic (...) to paragraph 2 of article 37 to be incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention.

Objection Denmark, 02-10-1968

Further, the Government of Denmark does not regard as valid the reservation to paragraph 2 of Article 37 made by the United Arab Republic (...). This statement shall not be regarded as precluding the entry into force of the Convention between Denmark and the above-mentioned countries

Objection Greece, 16-07-1970

The Government of Greece cannot accept (...) the reservation to paragraph 2 of article 37 of the Convention made by (...) the United Arab Republic.

Objection New Zealand, 23-09-1970

(...) the Government of New Zealand does not accept the reservation to paragraph 2 of Article 37 of the Convention made by (...) the United Arab Republic.

Objection France, 31-12-1970

The Government of the French Republic does not regard as valid the reservations to article 37, paragraph 2, made by (...) the Government of the United Arab Republic.

Objection Tonga, 31-01-1973

In its notification of succession, the Government of Tonga has indicated that it adopts the objections made by the United Kingdom respecting the reservations and statements made by Egypt (...) [to] the said Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Objection United States of America, 02-07-1974

The Government of the United States of America ... states its objection to reservations (...) with respect to paragraph 2 of article 37 by the United Arab Republic (now the Arab Republic of Egypt) (...). The Government of the United States, however, considers the Convention as continuing in force between it and the (...) above-mentioned [State] except for the provisions to which the reservations are addressed in each case.

Objection Belgium, 28-01-1975

The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium objects to the reservations made (...) with respect to article 37, paragraph 2, by the United Arab Republic (now the Arab Republic of Egypt) (...). The Government nevertheless considers that the Convention remains in force as between it and the aforementioned [State] (...), except in respect of the provisions which in each case are the subject of the said reservations.

Objection Bahamas, 17-03-1977

The Government of the Bahamas do not regard as valid the reservation to paragraph 2 of article 37 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by the United Arab Republic.

Objection Canada, 16-03-1978

(...) the Government of Canada does not regard as valid the reservations to paragraph 2 of article 37 of the Convention which have been made by the Government of the United Arab Republic (now the Arab Republic of Egypt) (...).

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 07-09-1984

The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept the declarations by the Arab Republic of Egypt (...) concerning article 37, paragraph 2 of the Convention. It takes the view that these provisions remain in force in relations between it and (...) [the Arab Republic of Egypt] in accordance with international customary law.

Objection Thailand, 23-01-1985

The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand does not regard as valid the reservations and declarations with respect to paragraph 2 of article 37 of the Convention made by (...) the Arab Republic of Egypt (...).

France

31-12-1970

The Government of the French Republic considers that article 38, paragraph 1, is to be interpreted as granting to a diplomatic agent who is a national of or permanently resident in the receiving State only immunity from jurisdiction, and inviolability, both being confined to official acts performed by the said diplomatic agent in the exercise of his functions.
The Government of the French Republic declares that the provisions of the bilateral agreements in force between France and foreign States are not affected by the provisions of the Convention.

Hungary

24-09-1965

The Hungarian People's Republic considers it necessary to draw attention to the discriminatory nature of articles 48 and 50 of the Convention, under the terms of which a number of States were precluded from signing and are precluded from acceding to the Convention. The Convention deals with matters which affect the interests of all States and therefore, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, no State should be barred from participation in a Convention of this nature.

Objection Luxembourg, 18-01-1965

With reference to the statement made by the Government of Hungary upon ratification of the Convention, the Government of Luxembourg regrets that it cannot accept this declaration.

Iraq

15-10-1963

With reservation that paragraph 2 of article 37 shall be applied on the basis of reciprocity.

Israel

16-05-2014

The Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as depositary to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and refers to the communication by the depositary, dated 9 April 2014, regarding the Palestinian request to accede to this Convention (Reference number C.N.176.2014.TREATlESIII.3).
'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 Convention and regards the Palestinian request for accession as being without legal validity and without effect upon Israel's treaty relations under the Convention.

Japan

08-06-1964

Declaration with regard to article 34 (a) of the said Convention:
It is understood that the taxes referred to in article 34 (a) include those collected by special collectors under the laws and regulations of Japan provided that they are normally incorporated in the price of goods or services. For example, in the case of the travelling tax, railway, shipping and airline companies are made special collectors of the tax by the Travelling Tax Law. Passengers of railroad trains, vessels and airplanes who are legally liable to pay the tax for their travels within Japan are required to purchase travel tickets normally at a price incorporating the tax with out being specifically informed of its amount. Accordingly, taxes collected by special collectors such as the travelling tax have to be considered as the indirect taxes normally incorporated in the price of goods or services referred to in article 34 (a).

Kuwait

23-07-1967

If the State of Kuwait has reason to believe that the diplomatic pouch contains something which may not be sent by pouch under paragraph 4 of article 27 of the Convention, it considers that it has the right to request that the pouch be opened in the presence of the representative of the diplomatic mission [concerned]. If this request is refused by the authorities of the sending State, the diplomatic pouch shall be returned to its place of origin.
The Government of Kuwait declares that its accession to the Convention does not imply recognition of "Israel" or entering with it into relations governed by the Convention thereto acceded.

Objection Israel, 05-09-1965

[The Government of Israel] has noted the political character of the declaration made by the Government of Kuwait on acceding to the above Convention. In the view of the Govern- ment of Israel, this Convention is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Kuwait an attitude of complete reciprocity.

Objection France, 31-12-1970

The Government of the French Republic does not regard as valid the reservation to article 27, paragraph 4, made by the State of Kuwait.

Objection United States of America, 02-07-1974

The Government of the United States of America ... states its objection to reservations (...) with respect to paragraph 4 of article 27 by Kuwait (...). The Government of the United States, however, considers the Convention as continuing in force between it and the (...) above-mentioned [State] except for the provisions to which the reservations are addressed in each case.

Objection Canada, 16-03-1978

The Government of Canada also desires to place on record that it does not regard as valid the reservations to (...) paragraph 4 of article 27 made by the State of Kuwait (...).

Objection Australia, 22-02-1983

Australia does not regard as valid the reservations made by (...) the State of Kuwait (...) in respect of treatment of the diplomatic bag under article 27 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Libya

07-06-1977

(1) The accession of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to said Convention cannot be interpreted as signifying in any form whatsoever any recognition of Israel nor does accession to said Convention imply the entertaining of any relations or obligations with Israel.
(2) The Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya will not be bound by paragraph 3 of article 37 of the Convention except on the basis of reciprocity.
(3) In the event that the authorities of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya entertain strong doubts that the contents of a diplomatic pouch include items which may not be sent by diplomatic pouch in accordance with paragraph 4 of article 27 of said Convention, the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya reserves its right to request the opening of such pouch in the presence of an official representative of the diplomatic mission concerned. If such request is denied by the authorities of the sending state, the diplomatic pouch shall be returned to its place of origin.

Objection Bulgaria, 18-08-1977

The Bulgarian Government does not consider itself to be bound by the reservation made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya concerning the application of article 27, paragraph 3, of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Objection Israel, 30-08-1977

The Government of Israel declared that it has noted the political character of the declaration made by the Government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on acceding to the above Convention. In the view of the Government of Israel, this Convention is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya an attitude of complete reciprocity.

Objection Germany, 19-09-1977

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers as incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention the reservations made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya concerning article 27 of the Convention.
The declaration is not to be interpreted as preventing the entry into force of the Convention as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

Objection Russian Federation, 07-11-1977

The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not consider itself bound by the reservation made by the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya concerning article 27 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Objection Poland, 07-03-1978

The principles of inviolability of diplomatic pouch and freedom of communication are generally recognized in interna- tional law and cannot be changed by unilateral reservation.
This objection does not prevent entry into force of the Convention as between the Polish People's Republic and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

Objection Canada, 16-03-1978

The Government of Canada also desires to place on record that it does not regard as valid the reservations to (...) paragraph 4 of article 27 made by (...) the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

Objection Australia, 22-02-1983

Australia does not regard as valid the reservations made by (...) the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, in respect of treatment of the diplomatic bag under article 27 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 07-09-1984

The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept the declarations by (...) the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (...) concerning article 37, paragraph 2 of the Convention. It takes the view that these provisions remain in force in relations between it and (...) [the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya] in accordance with international customary law.

Malta

07-03-1967

The Government of Malta wishes to declare that paragraph 2 of article 37 shall be applied on the basis of reciprocity.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 07-09-1984

The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept the declarations by (...) the Republic of Malta (...) concerning article 37, paragraph 2 of the Convention. It takes the view that these provisions remain in force in relations between it and (...) [the Republic of Malta] in accordance with international customary law.

Mongolia

05-01-1967

Referring to articles 48 and 50, the Government of the Mongolian People's Republic deems it necessary to draw attention to the discriminatory nature of articles 48 and 50 of the Vienna Convention and declares that, as the Convention deals with matters affecting the interests of all States, it should be open for accession by all States.

Morocco

19-06-1968

The Kingdom of Morocco accedes to the Convention subject to the reservation that paragraph 2 of article 37 is not applicable.

Objection United Kingdom, 23-08-1968

The Government of the United Kingdom do not regard as valid the reservation to paragraph 2 of article 37 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by the Kingdom of Morocco.

Objection Denmark, 02-10-1968

Further, the Government of Denmark does not regard as valid the reservation to paragraph 2 of Article 37 made by (...) Morocco. This statement shall not be regarded as precluding the entry into force of the Convention between Denmark and the above-mentioned countries.

Objection Germany, 23-12-1968

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers as incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention the reservations made by the Government of Morocco concerning article 37, paragraph 2 of the Convention.

Objection Greece, 16-07-1970

The Government of Greece cannot accept (...) the reservation to paragraph 2 of article 37 of the Convention made by (...) Morocco (...).

Objection New Zealand, 23-09-1970

(...) the Government of New Zealand does not accept the reservation to paragraph 2 of Article 37 of the Convention made by (...) Morocco (...).

Objection Australia, 20-11-1970

The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia declares that it does not recognize as valid the reservations to article 37, paragraph 2, of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by Morocco (...).

Objection France, 31-12-1970

The Government of the French Republic does not regard as valid the reservations to article 37, paragraph 2, made by (...) the Kingdom of Morocco (...).

Objection Tonga, 03-10-1973

In its notification of succession, the Government of Tonga has indicated that it adopts the objections made by the United Kingdom respecting the reservations and statements made by (...) Morocco (...) [to] the said Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Objection United States of America, 02-07-1974

The Government of the United States of America ... states its objection to reservations (...) by Morocco (...). The Government of the United States, however, considers the Convention as continuing in force between it and the (...) above-mentioned [State] except for the provisions to which the reservations are addressed in each case.

Objection Belgium, 28-01-1975

The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium objects to the reservations made (...) with respect to article 37, paragraph 2, by (...) Morocco. The Government nevertheless considers that the Convention remains in force as between it and the aforementioned [State] (...), except in respect of the provisions which in each case are the subject of the said reservations.

Objection Bahamas, 17-03-1977

The Government of the Bahamas do not regard as valid the reservation to paragraph 2 of article 37 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by the Kingdom of Morocco.

Objection Canada, 16-03-1978

(...) the Government of Canada does not regard as valid the reservations to paragraph 2 of article 37 of the Convention which have been made by the Government of (...) the Kingdom of Morocco.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 07-09-1984

The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept the declarations by (...) the Kingdom of Morocco concerning article 37, paragraph 2 of the Convention. It takes the view that these provisions remain in force in relations between it and (...) [the Kingdom of Morocco] in accordance with international customary law.

Objection Thailand, 23-01-1985

The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand does not regard as valid the reservations and declarations with respect to paragraph 2 of article 37 of the Convention made by (...) the Kingdom of Morocco.

Mozambique

18-11-1981

The People's Republic of Mozambique takes this opportunity to draw the attention to the discriminatory nature of the articles 48 and 50 of the present Convention which preclude a number of States from acceding to it. In view of its broad scope which affects the interest of all States in the world the present Convention should therefore be open for participation of all States.
The People's Republic of Mozambique considers that the joint participation of States in a convention does not represent their official recognition.

Nepal

28-09-1965

Subject to the reservation with regard to article 8, paragraph 3, of the Convention, that the prior consent to His Majesty's Government of Nepal shall be required for the appointment to the diplomatic staff of any mission in Nepal of any national of a third State who is not also a national of the sending State.

Oman

31-05-1974

The accession of this Convention does not mean in any way recognition of Israel by the Government of the Sultanate of Oman. Furthermore, no treaty relations will arise between the Sultanate of Oman and Israel.

Palestine

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.256.2014.TREATIES-III.3, dated 15 May 2014, conveying a communication of the United States of America regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, dated 18 April 1961.
The Government of the State of Palestine regrets the position of the United States of America 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 Diplomatic Relations, 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.

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.272.2014.TREATIES-III.3, dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Canada regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, dated 18 April 1961.
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 Diplomatic Relations, 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.

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.290.2014.TREATIES-III.3, dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Israel regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, dated 18 April 1961.
The Government of the State of Palestine regrets the position of Israel, the occupying Power, 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 Diplomatic Relations, 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.

Qatar

06-06-1986

I. On article 27, para. 3:
The Government of the State of Qatar reserves its right to open a diplomatic bag in the following two situations:
1. The abuse, observed in flagrante delicto, of the diplomatic bag for unlawful purposes incompatible with the aims of the relevant rule of immunity, by putting therein items other that the diplomatic documents and articles for official use mentioned in para.4 of the said article, in violation of the obligations prescribed by the Government and by international law and custom.
In such a case both the foreign Ministry and the Mission concerned will be notified. The bag will not be opened except with the approval by the Foreign Ministry.
The contraband articles will be seized in the presence of a representative of the Ministry and the Mission.
2. The existence of strong indications or suspicions that the said violations have been perpetrated.
In such a case the bag will not be opened except with the approval of the Foreign Ministry and in the presence of a member of the Mission concerned. If permission to open the bag is denied it will be returned to its place of origin.
II. On article 37, para. 2:
The State of Qatar shall not be bound by para. 2 of article 37.
III. Accession to this Convention does not mean in any way recognition of Israel and does not entail entering with it into any transactions regulated by this Convention.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 07-09-1984

The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept both reservations made by the State of Qatar concerning article 27, paragraph 3, of the Convention. It takes the view that this provision remains in force in relations between it and the State of Qatar in accordance with international customary law. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is nevertheless prepared to agree to the following arrangement on a basis of reciprocity: If the authorities of the receiving State have serious grounds for believing that the diplomatic bag contains something which, pursuant to article 27, paragraph 4, of the Convention, may not be sent in the diplomatic bag, they may demand that the bag be opened in the presence of the representative of the diplomatic mission concerned. If the authorities of the sending State refuse to comply with such a demand, the diplomatic bag shall be sent back to the place of origin.
Furthermore, the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept the reservation made by the State of Qatar concerning article 37, paragraph 2, of the Convention. It takes the view that this provision remains in force in relations between it and the State of Qatar in accordance with international customary law.

Objection Russian Federation, 06-10-1986

The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not recognize as valid the reservations of the Government of Qatar with respect to article 27, paragraph 3 and article 37, paragraph 2 of the 1961 Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Government of the USSR considers that the reservations in question are illegal, since they conflict with the purposes of the Convention.

Objection Israel, 15-10-1986

The Government of Israel declared that it has noted the political character of the declaration made by the Government of Qatar. In the view of the Government of Israel, this Convention is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Qatar an attitude of complete reciprocity.

Objection Belarus, 16-10-1986

The Government of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic does not recognize as valid the reservations of the Government of Qatar with respect to article 27, paragraph 3 and article 37, paragraph 2 of the 1961 Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Government of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic considers that the reservations in question are illegal, since they conflict with the purposes of the Convention.

Objection Ukraine, 20-10-1986

The Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic does not recognize as valid the reservations of the Government of Qatar with respect to article 27, paragraph 3 and article 37, paragraph 2 of the 1961 Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic considers that the reservations in question are illegal, since they conflict with the purposes of the Convention.

Objection Japan, 27-01-1987

With respect to paragraphs 3 and 4 of article 27 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961, the Government of Japan believes that the protection of diplomatic correspondence by means of diplomatic bags constitutes an important element of the Convention, and any reservation intended to allow a receiving State to open diplomatic bags without the consent of the sending State is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Therefore the Government of Japan does not regard as valid the reservations concerning article 27 of the Convention made by (...) the Government of Qatar on (...) 6 June 1986, respectively. The Government of Japan also desires to record that the above-stated position is applicable to any reservations to the same effect to be made in the future by other countries.

Objection Australia, 10-02-1987

Australia does not regard as valid the reservations made by the State of Qatar (...) in respect of treatment of the diplomatic bag under Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961.

Objection United Kingdom, 19-02-1987

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland wish to place on record that they do not regard as valid the reservations to paragraph 3 of article 27, and to paragraph 2 of article 37, of the Vienna Convention on Diplo- matic Relations made by the Government of the State of Qatar.

Objection Germany, 03-03-1987

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers as incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention the reservations made by the State of Qatar concerning article 27, paragraph 3 and article 37, paragraph 2 of the Convention.
The declaration is not to be interpreted as preventing the entry into force of the Convention as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the State of Qatar.

Objection Czechoslovakia (<01-01-1993), 01-06-1987

The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic regards the reservations of the State of Qatar with respect to article 27, paragraph 3 and article 37, paragraph 2 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961 as incompatible with the objects and purposes of this Convention. Therefore, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic does not recognize these reservations as valid.

Objection United States of America, 04-09-1987

The Government of the United States of America wishes to state its objections to the reservations regarding the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made (...) with respect to paragraph 3 of Article 27 and paragraph 2 of Article 37 by the State of Qatar (...).
The Government of the United States, however, considers the [Convention] as continuing in force between it and the (...) above-mentioned [State] except for the provisions to which the reservations are addressed in each case.

Objection Czech Republic, 22-02-1993

The [Czech] Republic regards the reservations of the State of Qatar with respect to article 27, paragraph 3 and article 37, paragraph 2 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961 as incompatible with the objects and purposes of this Convention. Therefore, the [Czech] Republic does not recognize these reservations as valid.

Objection Slovakia, 28-05-1993

The [Slovak] Republic regards the reservations of the State of Qatar with respect to article 27, paragraph 3 and article 37, paragraph 2 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961 as incompatible with the objects and purposes of this Convention. Therefore, the [Slovak] Republic does not recognize these reservations as valid.

Romania

15-11-1968

The Council of State of the Socialist Republic of Romania considers that the provisions of articles 48 and 50 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, done at Vienna on 18 April 1961, are at variance with the principle that all States have the right to become parties to multilateral treaties governing matters of general interest.

Russian Federation

25-03-1964

Reservation concerning article 11, paragraph 1:
In accordance with the principle of the equality of rights of States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics considers that any difference of opinion regarding the size of a diplomatic mission should be settled by agreement between the sending State and the receiving State.
Declaration concerning articles 48 and 50:
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics considers it necessary to draw attention to the discriminatory nature of articles 48 and 50 of the Convention, under the terms of which a number of States are precluded from acceding to the Convention. The Con- vention deals with matters which affect the interests of all States and should therefore be open for accession by all States. In accordance with the principle of sovereign equality, no State has the right to bar other States from accession to a Convention of this nature.

Objection Tanzania, 22-06-1964

The Government of the United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar rejects formally the reservation to article 11, paragraph 1, of the Convention made by the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in its instrument of ratification.

Objection United Kingdom, 01-09-1964

(...) the Government of the United Kingdom do not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Convention made by (...) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Germany, 11-11-1964

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers as incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention the reservations made by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (...) concerning article 11 of the Convention.

Objection Luxembourg, 18-01-1965

With reference to the reservation and declaration made by (...) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics upon ratification of the Convention, the Government of Luxembourg regrets that it cannot accept that reservation or that declaration which tends to modify the effect of certain provisions of the Convention.

Objection Canada, 26-05-1966

The Government of Canada does not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Convention made by (...) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as modifying any rights or obligations under this paragraph.

Objection Malta, 07-03-1967

The Government of Malta does not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 made by (...) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Australia, 14-03-1968

The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia does not regard the statements concerning paragraph (1) of Article 11 made by (...) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (...) as modifying any rights or obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Belgium, 02-05-1968

The Belgian Government considers the statement made by (...) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 to be incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention and does not regard it as modifying any rights or obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Denmark, 02-10-1968

The Government of Denmark does not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by (...) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Greece, 16-07-1970

The Government of Greece cannot accept the reservation to paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Convention made by (...) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (...).

Objection New Zealand, 23-09-1970

The Government of New Zealand does not regard the statements concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by (...) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

Objection France, 31-12-1970

The Government of the French Republic does not regard the statements concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 made by (...) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as modifying any rights or obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Tonga, 31-01-1973

In its notification of succession, the Government of Tonga has indicated that it adopts the objections made by the United Kingdom respecting the reservations and statements made by (...) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (...) [to] the said Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 07-09-1984

The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept the declarations by (...) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (...) concerning article 11, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Kingdom of the Netherlands takes the view that this provision remains in force in relations between it and (...) [the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics] in accordance with international customary law.

Objection Thailand, 23-01-1985

The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand does not regard the statements concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Convention made by (...) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

Saudi Arabia

10-02-1981

1. If the authorities of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia suspect that the diplomatic pouch or any parcel therein contains matters which may not be sent through the diplomatic pouch, such authorities may request the opening of the parcel in their presence and in the presence of a representative appointed by the diplomatic mission concerned. If such request is rejected, the pouch or parcel shall be returned back.
2. Accession to this Convention shall not constitute a recognition of Israel or lead to any kind of intercourse with it or the establishment of any relations with Israel under the Convention.

Objection Israel, 01-04-1981

The Government of Israel declared that it has noted the political character of the declaration made by the Government of Saudi Arabia. In the view of the Government of Israel, this Convention is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Saudi Arabia an attitude of complete reciprocity.

Objection Germany, 15-05-1981

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers as incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention the reservations made by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia concerning article 27 of the Convention.
The declaration is not to be interpreted as preventing the entry into force of the Convention as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Objection Bulgaria, 23-06-1981

The Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria does not consider itself bound by the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on its accession to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations regarding the immunity of the diplomatic bag and the right of the competent authorities of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to demand the open- ing of the diplomatic bag and, in case of refusal on the part of the diplomatic mission concerned, its return. It is the understanding of the Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria that the reservation thus made is in violation of article 27, para. 4 of the 1961 Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Objection Russian Federation, 16-02-1982

The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not recognize the validity of the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on its accession to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, since that reservation is contrary to one of the most important provisions of the Convention, namely, that the diplomatic bag shall not be opened or detained.

Objection Australia, 22-02-1983

Australia does not regard as valid the reservations made by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (...) in respect of treatment of the diplomatic bag under article 27 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Slovakia

19-05-1993

In accordance with the relevant principles and rules of international law and to the extent defined by it, the Slovak Republic, as a successor State, born from the dissolution of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, considers itself bound, as of January 1, 1993, i.e., the date on which the Slovak Republic assumed responsibility for its international relations, by multilateral treaties to which the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic was a party as of 31 December 1992, including reservations and declarations made earlier by Czechoslovakia, as well as objections by Czechoslovakia to reservations formulated by other treaty-parties.

Sudan

13-04-1981

The diplomatic immunities and privileges provided for in article 37 paragraph 2 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, recognized and admitted in customary law and in the practice of States in favour of heads of missions and members of diplomatic staff of the mission, cannot be granted by the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Sudan for other categories of mission staff except on the basis of reciprocity.
The Government of the Democratic Republic of the Sudan reserves the right to interpret article 38 as not granting to a diplomatic agent who is a national of or permanent resident in the Sudan any immunity from jurisdiction, and inviolability, even though the acts complained of are official acts performed by the said diplomatic agent in the exercise of his functions.
The Government of the Democratic Republic of the Sudan understands that its ratification of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 does not imply whatsoever recognition of Israel or entering with it into relations governed by the said Convention.

Objection Israel, 14-08-1981

The Government of Israel declared that it has noted the political character of the declaration made by the Government of Sudan. In the view of the Government of Israel, this Convention is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Sudan an attitude of complete reciprocity.

Objection Germany, 30-09-1981

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers as incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention the reservations made by the Government of the Democratic Republic of Sudan concerning article 37, paragraph 2 and of article 38 of the Convention.
The declaration is not to be interpreted as preventing the entry into force of the Convention as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Democratic Republic of Sudan.

Syria

15-03-1979

1. The Syrian Arab Republic does not recognize Israel and will not enter into dealings with it.
2. The Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes does not enter into force for the Syrian Arab Republic.
3. The exemption provided for in article 36, paragraph 1, shall not apply to the administrative and technical staff of the mission except during the first six months following their arrival in the receiving State.

Objection Germany, 11-07-1979

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers as incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention the reservations made by the Syrian Arab Republic concerning article 36, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
The declaration is not to be interpreted as preventing the entry into force of the Convention as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Syrian Arab Republic.

Objection Israel, 29-10-1979

The Government of Israel declared that it has noted the political character of the declaration made by the Government of Syria. In the view of the Government of Israel, this Convention is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Syria an attitude of complete reciprocity.

Ukraine

12-06-1964

Reservation concerning article 11, paragraph 1:
In accordance with the principle of the equality of rights of States, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic considers that any difference of opinion regarding the size of a diplomatic mission should be settled by agreement between the sending State and the receiving State.
Declaration concerning articles 48 and 50:
The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic considers it necess- ary to draw attention to the discriminatory nature of articles 48 and 50 of the Convention, under the terms of which a number of States are precluded from acceding to the Convention. The Con- vention deals with matters which affect the interests of all States and should therefore be open for accession by all States. In accordance with the principle of sovereign equality, no State has the right to bar other States from accession to a Convention of this nature.

Objection United Kingdom, 01-09-1964

(...) the Government of the United Kingdom do not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Convention made by (...) the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Germany, 11-11-1964

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers as incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention the reservations made by (...) the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic concerning article 11 of the Convention.

Objection Luxembourg, 18-01-1965

With reference to the reservation and declaration made by (...) the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) upon ratification of the Convention, the Government of Luxembourg regrets that it cannot accept that reservation or that declaration which tends to modify the effect of certain provisions of the Convention.

Objection Canada, 26-05-1966

The Government of Canada does not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Convention made by (...) the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) as modifying any rights or obligations under this paragraph.

Objection Malta, 07-03-1967

The Government of Malta does not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 made by (...) the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Australia, 14-03-1968

The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia does not regard the statements concerning paragraph (1) of Article 11 made by (...) the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) as modifying any rights or obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Belgium, 02-05-1968

The Belgian Government considers the statement made by (...) the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 to be incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention and does not regard it as modifying any rights or obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Denmark, 02-10-1968

The Government of Denmark does not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by (...) the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph

Objection Greece, 16-07-1970

The Government of Greece cannot accept the reservation to paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Convention made by (...) the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (...).

Objection New Zealand, 23-09-1970

The Government of New Zealand does not regard the statements concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by (...) the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

Objection France, 31-12-1970

The Government of the French Republic does not regard the statements concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 made by (...) the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) as modifying any rights or obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Tonga, 31-01-1973

In its notification of succession, the Government of Tonga has indicated that it adopts the objections made by the United Kingdom respecting the reservations and statements made by (...) the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) [to] the said Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 07-09-1984

The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept the declarations by (...) the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) concerning article 11, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Kingdom of the Netherlands takes the view that this provision remains in force in relations between it and (...) [the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic] in accordance with international customary law.

Objection Thailand, 23-01-1985

The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand does not regard the statements concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Convention made by (...) the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (...) as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

United Arab Emirates

24-02-1977

The accession of the United Arab Emirates to this Conven- tion shall in no way amount to recognition of nor the establish- ment of any treaty relation with Israel.

United States of America

13-05-2014

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 the Convention 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 the Convention and affirms that it will not consider itself to be in a treaty relationship with the 'State of Palestine' under the Convention.

Venezuela

16-03-1965

Under the Constitution of Venezuela, all Venezuelan nationals are equal before the law and none may enjoy special privileges; for that reason [the Government of Venezuela] make[s] a formal reservation to article 38 of the Convention.

Vietnam

26-08-1980

1. The degrees of privileges and immunities accorded the administrative and technical staff and the members of their families as stipulated in paragraph 2, article 37 of the Convention should be agreed upon in detail by the concerned States;
2. The provisions of articles 48 and 50 of the Convention are of a discriminatory character, which is not in accordance with the principle of equality of the sovereignty among States and limits the universality of the Convention. The Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, therefore, holds the view that all States have the right to adhere to the said Convention.

Objection Germany, 11-12-1980

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers as incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention the reservations made by the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam concerning article 37, paragraph 2 of the Convention.
The declaration is not to be interpreted as preventing the entry into force of the Convention as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam.

Yemen

24-11-1976

Reservation concerning article 11, paragraph 1:
In conformity with the principle of equality among States, the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen holds that any difference of opinion regarding the size of the diplomatic mission should be settled by agreement between the sending State and the receiving State.
The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen states that its acceptance of the provisions of the Convention does not, in any way whatsoever, imply recognition of, or entering into contractual relations with, Israel.

Objection Israel, 12-01-1977

The Government of Israel declared that it has noted the political character of the declaration made by the Government of Democratic Yemen on acceding to the above Convention. In the view of the Government of Israel, this Convention is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Democratic Yemen an attitude of complete reciprocity.

Objection United Kingdom, 04-02-1977

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland wish to place on record that they do not regard the reservation concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Convention, made by the Government of Democratic Yemen, as modifying any rights or obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Germany, 04-03-1977

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers as incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention the reservations made by the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen concerning article 11, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Objection Canada, 16-03-1978

The Government of Canada does not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Convention made by the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Australia, 21-06-1978

The Government of Australia does not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Convention made by the Government of (...) the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen as modifying any rights or obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 07-09-1984

The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept the declarations by (...) the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen concerning article 11, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Kingdom of the Netherlands takes the view that this provision remains in force in relations between it and (...) [the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen] in accordance with international customary law.

Objection Thailand, 23-01-1985

The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand does not regard the statements concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Convention made by (...) the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (...) as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

Objection Belarus, 11-11-1986

Same reservation, mutatis mutandis,as the one made by the Russian Federation on 6 November 1986.

Objection Czechoslovakia (<01-01-1993), 01-06-1987

The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic regards the reservations of the Yemen Arab Republic with respect to articles 27, 36 and 37 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961 as incompatible with the objects and purposes of this Convention. Therefore, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic does not recognize these reservations as valid.

Objection Czech Republic, 22-02-1993

The [Czech] Republic regards the reservations of the Yemen Arab Republic with respect to articles 27, 36 and 37 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961 as incompatible with the objects and purposes of this Convention. Therefore, the [Czech] Republic does not recognize these reservations as valid.

Objection Slovakia, 28-05-1993

The [Slovak] Republic regards the reservations of the Yemen Arab Republic with respect to articles 27, 36 and 37 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961 as incompatible with the objects and purposes of this Convention. Therefore, the [Slovak] Republic does not recognize these reservations as valid.

10-04-1986

1. The accession of the Yemen Arab Republic to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, done at Vienna on 18 April 1961, in no way implies recognition of Israel and shall not entail the entry of the Yemen Arab Republic with Israel into any of the relations governed by this Convention.
2. The Yemen Arab Republic has the right to inspect foodstuffs imported by diplomatic envoys and diplomatic missions in order to ascertain that they conform in quantity and in kind to the list submitted by them to the customs authorities and to the Office of Protocol at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the purpose of obtaining approval for their importation exempt from customs duties in accordance with article 36 of the Convention.
3. Where there are serious and strong grounds for believing that the diplomatic bag contains articles or substances not mentioned in article 27, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Yemen Arab Republic reserves its right to request that the bag be opened in the presence of a representative of the embassy concerned. If the embassy refuses to comply with this request, the bag shall be returned to its place of origin.
4. Reservation concerning the privileges and immunities provided for in article 37, paragraph 2, of the Convention in respect of members of the administrative and technical staff of the mission: the Yemen Arab Republic shall not be bound to implement this paragraph except on a basis of reciprocity.

Objection France, 29-08-1986

1. The Government of the French Republic declares that it does not recognize as valid the reservation entered by the Government of the Yemen Arab Republic which would make it permissible to request the opening of the diplomatic bag and to return it to the sender. The Government of the French Republic considers that this or any similar reservation is inconsistent with the object and the purpose of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations done at Vienna on 18April 1961.
2. This declaration shall not be regarded as an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between the French Republic and the Yemen Arab Republic.

Objection Russian Federation, 06-11-1986

The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not recognize as lawful the reservations of the Government of Yemen with respect to articles 27, 36 and 37 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, since those reservations conflict with the purposes of the Convention.

Objection Belarus, 11-11-1986

The Government of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic does not recognize as lawful the reservations of the Government of Yemen with respect to articles 27, 36 and 37 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, since those reservations conflict with the purposes of the Convention.

Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 05-12-1986

(...) the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept the reservation made by the Yemen Arab Republic concerning article 37, paragraph 2, of the Convention. It takes the view that these provisions remain in force in relations between it and the Yemen Arab Republic in accordance with international customary law.

Objection Australia, 10-02-1987

Australia does not regard as valid the reservations made by (...) the Yemen Arab Republic in respect of treatment of the diplomatic bag under Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961.

Objection Germany, 03-03-1987

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers as incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention the reservations made by the Yemen Arab Republic concerning article 27 and article 37, paragraph 2 of the Convention.
The declaration is not to be interpreted as preventing the entry into force of the Convention as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Yemen Arab Republic.

Objection Israel, 01-09-1987

The Government of Israel declared that it has noted the political character of the declaration made by the Government of Yemen. In the view of the Government of Israel, this Convention is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Yemen an attitude of complete reciprocity.

Objection United States of America, 04-09-1987

The Government of the United States of America wishes to state its objections to the reservations regarding the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made with respect to paragraph 4 of Article 27 by the Yemen Arab Republic (...).
The Government of the United States, however, considers the [Convention] as continuing in force between it and the (...) above-mentioned [State] except for the provisions to which the reservations are addressed in each case.