Print
Download XMLVerdrag inzake de voorkoming en de bestraffing van genocide
Partijen met voorbehouden, verklaringen en bezwaren
| Partij | Voorbehoud / verklaring | Bezwaren |
|---|---|---|
| Albanië | Ja | Ja |
| Algerije | Ja | Ja |
| Argentinië | Ja | Ja |
| Australië | Ja | Nee |
| Bahrein | Ja | Ja |
| Bangladesh | Ja | Nee |
| Belarus | Ja | Ja |
| Bulgarije | Ja | Ja |
| Canada | Ja | Nee |
| China | Ja | Ja |
| Cyprus | Ja | Nee |
| Filipijnen | Ja | Ja |
| Griekenland | Ja | Nee |
| Hongarije | Ja | Ja |
| India | Ja | Ja |
| Israël | Ja | Nee |
| Jemen | Ja | Ja |
| Maleisië | Ja | Ja |
| Marokko | Ja | Ja |
| Mongolië | Ja | Ja |
| Montenegro | Ja | Nee |
| Myanmar | Ja | Ja |
| Oekraïne | Ja | Ja |
| Palestina | Ja | Nee |
| Polen | Ja | Ja |
| Portugal | Ja | Nee |
| Roemenië | Ja | Ja |
| Russische Federatie | Ja | Ja |
| Rwanda | Ja | Nee |
| Servië | Ja | Ja |
| Singapore | Ja | Ja |
| Venezuela | Ja | Ja |
| Verenigde Arabische Emiraten | Ja | Nee |
| Verenigde Staten van Amerika | Ja | Ja |
| Vietnam | Ja | Ja |
Albanië
12-05-1955
As regards article XII: The People's Republic of Albania declares that it is not in agreement with article XII of the Convention and considers that all the provisions of the Convention should extend to Non-Self-Governing Territories, including Trust Territories.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 20-06-1966
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it considers the reservations made by Albania, [...] in respect of article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, opened for signature at Paris on 9 December 1948, to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore does not deem any State which has made or which will make such reservation a party to the Convention.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 30-01-1970
The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles [...]
XII of the Convention made by Albania [...].
Algerije
31-10-1963
The Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria does not consider itself bound by article
IX of the Convention, which confers on the International Court of Justice jurisdiction
in all disputes relating to the said Convention.
The Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria declares that no provision of article
VI of the said Convention shall be interpreted as depriving its tribunals of jurisdiction
in cases of genocide or other acts enumerated in article III which have been committed
in its territory or as conferring such jurisdiction on foreign tribunals.
International tribunals may, as an exceptional measure, be recognized as having jurisdiction,
in cases in which the Algerian Government has given its express approval.
The Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria declares that it does not accept the
terms of article XII of the Convention and considers that all the provisions of the
said Convention should apply to Non-Self-Governing Territories, including Trust Territories.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 20-06-1966
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it considers the reservations made by [...] Algeria, [...] in respect of article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, opened for signature at Paris on 9 December 1948, to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore does not deem any State which has made or which will make such reservation a party to the Convention.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 30-01-1970
The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles [...] IX or XII of the Convention made by [...] Algeria, [...].
Argentinië
05-06-1956
Ad article IX: The Argentine Government reserves the right not to submit to the procedure
laid down in this article any dispute relating directly or indirectly to the territories
referred to in its reservation to article XII.
Ad article XII: If any other Contracting Party extends the application of the Convention
to territories under the sovereignty of the Argentine Republic, this extension shall
in no way affect the rights of the Republic.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 30-01-1970
The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles [...]
IX or XII of the Convention made by [...] Argentina, [...].
03-10-1983
[The Government of Argentina makes a] formal objection to the declaration of territorial
extension issued by the United Kingdom with regard to the Malvinas Islands (and dependencies),
which that country is illegally occupying and refers to as the "Falkland Islands".
The Argentine Republic rejects and considers null and void the [said declaration]
of territorial extension.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 28-02-1985
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have no
doubt as to their right, by notification to the Depositary under the relevant provisions
of the above-mentioned Convention, to extend the application of the Convention in
question to the Falkland Islands or to the Falkland Islands Dependencies, as the case
may be.
For this reason alone, the Government of the United Kingdom are unable to regard the
Argentine [communication] under reference as having any legal effect.
Australië
08-07-1949
All territories for the conduct of whose foreign relations Australia is responsible.
Bahrein
27-03-1990
With reference to article IX of the Convention the Government of the State of Bahrain declares that, for the submission of any dispute in terms of this article to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the express consent of all the parties to the dispute is required in each case.
Bezwaar Israël, 25-06-1990
The Government of the State of Israel has noted that the instrument of accession of
Bahrain to the [said] Convention contains a declaration in respect of Israel.
In the view of the Government of the State of Israel, such declaration, which is explicitly
of a political character, is incompatible with the purpose and objectives of this
Convention and cannot in any way affect whatever obligations are binding upon Bahrain
under general International Law or under particular Conventions.
The Government of the State of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of
the matter, adopt towards Bahrain an attitude of complete reciprocity.
Bangladesh
05-10-1998
Article IX: For the submission of any dispute in terms of this article to the jurisdiction
of the International Court of Justice, the consent of all parties to the dispute will
be required in each case.
Belarus
11-08-1954
The Byelorussian SSR declares that it is not in agreement with article XII of the
Convention and considers that all the provisions of the Convention should extend to
non-self-governing territories, including trust territories.
Bezwaar Ecuador, 31-03-1950
The Government of Ecuador is not in agreement with the reservations made to article [...] and XII of the Convention by the Governments of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, [...] and, therefore, they do not apply to Ecuador which accepted without any modifications the integral text of the Convention.
Bezwaar Australië, 15-11-1950
The Australian Government does not accept any of the reservations made at the time
of signature of the Convention by the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, [...].
Bezwaar België, 05-09-1951
The Government of Belgium does not accept the reservations made by [...] Byelorussian
Soviet Socialist Republic, [...].
Bezwaar Brazilië, 15-04-1952
The Government of Brazil objects to the reservations made to the Convention by [...]
the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, [...]. The Brazilian Government considers
the said reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The position taken by the Government of Brazil is founded on the Advisory Opinion
of the International Court of Justice of 28 May 1951 and on the resolution adopted
by the sixth session of the General Assembly on 12 January 1952, on reservations to
multilateral conventions.
The Brazilian Government reserves the right to draw any such legal consequences as
it may deem fit from its formal objection to the above-mentioned reservations.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 20-06-1966
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it considers the reservations made by [...] the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, [...] in respect of article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, opened for signature at Paris on 9 December 1948, to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore does not deem any State which has made or which will make such reservation a party to the Convention.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 30-01-1970
The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles [...]
XII of the Convention made by [...] the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, [...].
Bulgarije
21-07-1950
As regards article XII: The People's Republic of Bulgaria declares that it is not
in agreement with article XII of the Convention and considers that all the provisions
of the Convention should extend to Non-Self-Governing Territories, including Trust
Territories.
Bezwaar Ecuador, 21-08-1950
The Government of Ecuador is not in agreement with the reservations made to article [...] and XII of the Convention by the Governments of [...] Bulgaria and, therefore, they do not apply to Ecuador which accepted without any modifications the integral text of the Convention.
Bezwaar Australië, 15-11-1950
The Australian Government does not accept any of the reservations contained in the
instrument of accession of the People's Republic of Bulgaria [...].
Bezwaar België, 05-09-1951
The Government of Belgium does not accept the reservations made by Bulgaria [...].
Bezwaar Brazilië, 15-04-1952
The Government of Brazil objects to the reservations made to the Convention by Bulgaria,
[...]. The Brazilian Government considers the said reservations as incompatible with
the object and purpose of the Convention.
The position taken by the Government of Brazil is founded on the Advisory Opinion
of the International Court of Justice of 28 May 1951 and on the resolution adopted
by the sixth session of the General Assembly on 12 January 1952, on reservations to
multilateral conventions.
The Brazilian Government reserves the right to draw any such legal consequences as
it may deem fit from its formal objection to the above-mentioned reservations.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 20-06-1966
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it considers the reservations made by [...] Bulgaria, [...] in respect of article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, opened for signature at Paris on 9 December 1948, to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore does not deem any State which has made or which will make such reservation a party to the Convention.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 30-01-1970
The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles [...]
XII of the Convention made by [...] Bulgaria, [...].
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 Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and the Secretary-General's
communication of 9 April 2014, numbered C.N.178.2014.TREATIES-IV.1, 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 Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 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 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 'Palestine'
is not able to accede to this convention, and that the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide does not enter into force, or have an effect
on Canada's treaty relations, with respect to the 'State of Palestine'.
China
18-04-1983
The ratification to the said Convention by the Taiwan local authorities on 19 July
1951 in the name of China is illegal and therefore null and void.
The People's Republic of China does not consider itself bound by article IX of the
said Convention.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 26-08-1983
[...] The Government of the United Kingdom have however consistently stated that they
are unable to accept reservations to this article. [...].
16-09-1999
[...]
The reservation made by the Government of the People's Republic of China to Article
9 of the Convention will also apply to the Macao Special Administrative Region.
[...]
Cyprus
18-05-1998
The Government of the Republic of Cyprus has taken note of the reservations made by
a number of countries when acceding to the [Convention] and wishes to state that in
its view these are not the kind of reservations which intending parties to the Convention
have the right to make.
Accordingly, the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not accept any reservations
entered by any Government with regard to any of the Articles of the Convention.
Filipijnen
07-07-1950
l. With reference to article IV of the Convention, the Philippine Government cannot
sanction any situation which would subject its Head of State, who is not a ruler,
to conditions less favorable than those accorded other Heads of State, whether constitutionally
responsible rulers or not. The Philippine Government does not consider said article,
therefore, as overriding the existing immunities from judicial processes guaranteed
certain public officials by the Constitution of the Philippines.
2. With reference to article VII of the Convention, the Philippine Government does
not undertake to give effect to said article until the Congress of the Philippines
has enacted the necessary legislation defining and punishing the crime of genocide,
which legislation, under the Constitution of the Philippines, cannot have any retroactive
effect.
3. With reference to articles VI and IX of the Convention, the Philippine Government
takes the position that nothing contained in said articles shall be construed as depriving
Philippine courts of jurisdiction over all cases of genocide committed within Philippine
territory save only in those cases where the Philippine Government consents to have
the decision of the Philippine courts reviewed by either of the international tribunals
referred to in said articles. With further reference to article IX of the Convention,
the Philippine Government does not consider said article to extend the concept of
State responsibility beyond that recognized by the generally accepted principles of
international law.
Bezwaar Australië, 15-11-1950
The Australian Government does not accept any of the reservations contained [...]
in the instrument of ratification of the Republic of the Philippines.
Bezwaar Noorwegen, 10-04-1952
The Norwegian Government does not accept the reservations made to the Convention by the Government of the Philippines at the time of ratification.
Bezwaar Brazilië, 15-04-1952
The Government of Brazil objects to the reservations made to the Convention by [...]
the Philippines, [...]. The Brazilian Government considers the said reservations as
incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The position taken by the Government of Brazil is founded on the Advisory Opinion
of the International Court of Justice of 28 May 1951 and on the resolution adopted
by the sixth session of the General Assembly on 12 January 1952, on reservations to
multilateral conventions.
The Brazilian Government reserves the right to draw any such legal consequences as
it may deem fit from its formal objection to the above-mentioned reservations.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 30-01-1970
The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles IV,
VII, [...], IX or [...] of the Convention made by [...] the Philippines, [...].
Griekenland
26-01-1990
We further declare that we have not accepted and do not accept any reservation which
has already been made or which may hereafter be made by the countries signatory to
this instrument or by countries which have acceded or may hereafter accede thereto.
Hongarije
07-01-1952
The Hungarian People's Republic reserves its rights with regard to the provisions
of article XII which do not define the obligations of countries having colonies with
regard to questions of colonial exploitation and to acts which might be described
as genocide.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 20-06-1966
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it considers the reservations made by [...] Hungary, [...] in respect of article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, opened for signature at Paris on 9 December 1948, to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore does not deem any State which has made or which will make such reservation a party to the Convention.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 30-01-1970
The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles [...]
XII of the Convention made by [...] Hungary, [...].
India
27-08-1959
With reference to article IX of the Convention, the Government of India declares that,
for the submission of any dispute in terms of this article to the jurisdiction of
the International Court of Justice, the consent of all the parties to the dispute
is required in each case.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 20-06-1966
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it considers the reservations
made by [...], India, [...] in respect of article IX of the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, opened for signature at Paris on 9 December
1948, to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government
of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore does not deem any State which has made
or which will make such reservation a party to the Convention.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 30-01-1970
The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles [...],
IX or [...] of the Convention made by [...] India, [...].
Israël
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 Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 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.178.2014.TREATIES-IV.1).
'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.
Jemen
09-02-1987
In acceding to this Convention, the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen does not consider itself bound by article IX of the Convention, which provides that disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute. It declares that the competence of the International Court of Justice with respect to disputes concerning the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention shall in each case be subject to the express consent of all parties to the dispute.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 30-12-1987
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have consistently
stated that they are unable to accept reservations in respect of article IX of the
said Convention; in their view this is not the kind of reservation which intending
parties to the Convention have the right to make.
Accordingly the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
do not accept the reservation entered by the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen
against article IX of the Convention.
Maleisië
20-12-1994
That with reference to article IX of the Convention, before any dispute to which Malaysia
is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice
under this article, the specific consent of Malaysia is required in each case.
That the pledge to grant extradition in accordance with a state's laws and treaties
in force found in article VII extends only to acts which are criminal under the law
of both the requesting and the requested state.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 23-02-1996
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls its declaration made on 20
June 1966 on the occasion of the accession [to the said Convention].
Accordingly, the Government of the Netherlands declares that it considers the reservations
made by Malaysia and [...] in respect of article IX of the Convention incompatible
with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the
Netherlands does not consider Malaysia and [...] Parties to the Convention.
[...]
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 30-03-1996
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have consistently
stated that they are unable to accept reservations to article IX. In their view, these
are not the kind of reservations which intending parties to the Convention have the
right to make.
Accordingly, the Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations entered
by the Government of [...] Malaysia to article IX of the Convention.
Bezwaar Noorwegen, 14-10-1996
[...] In [the view of the Government of Norway], reservations in respect of article IX of the Convention are incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention. Accordingly, the Government of Norway does not accept the reservations entered by the Governments of [...] and Malaysia to article IX of the Convention.
Marokko
24-01-1958
With reference to article VI, the Government of His Majesty the King considers that
Moroccan courts and tribunals alone have jurisdiction with respect to acts of genocide
committed within the territory of the Kingdom of Morocco.
The competence of international courts may be admitted exceptionally in cases with
respect to which the Moroccan Government has given its specific agreement.
With reference to article IX, the Moroccan Government states that no dispute relating
to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention can be
brought before the International Court of Justice, without the prior agreement of
the parties to the dispute.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 20-06-1966
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it considers the reservations
made by [...] Morocco, [...] in respect of article IX of the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, opened for signature at Paris on 9 December
1948, to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government
of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore does not deem any State which has made
or which will make such reservation a party to the Convention.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 30-01-1970
The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles [...], IX or [...] of the Convention made by [...] Morocco, [...].
Mongolië
05-01-1967
The Government of the Mongolian People's Republic declares that it is not in a position
to agree with article XII of the Convention and considers that the provisions of the
said article should be extended to non-self-governing territories, including trust
territories.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 30-01-1970
The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles [...]
XII of the Convention made by [...] Mongolia, [...].
Montenegro
23-10-2006
[Montenegro] does not consider itself bound by Article IX of the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and, therefore, before any dispute
to which [Montenegro] is a party may be validly submitted to the jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice under this Article, the specific and explicit consent
of the FRY is required in each case.
Myanmar
14-03-1956
(1) With reference to article VI, the Union of Burma makes the reservation that nothing
contained in the said Article shall be construed as depriving the Courts and Tribunals
of the Union of jurisdiction or as giving foreign Courts and tribunals jurisdiction
over any cases of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III committed
within the Union territory.
(2) With reference to article VIII, the Union of Burma makes the reservation that
the said article shall not apply to the Union.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 30-01-1970
The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles [...]
VIII, [...] of the Convention made by [...] Burma, [...].
Oekraïne
15-11-1954
The Ukrainian SSR declares that it is not in agreement with article XII of the Convention
and considers that all the provisions of the Convention should extend to Non-Self-Governing
Territories, including Trust Territories.
Bezwaar Ecuador, 31-03-1950
The Government of Ecuador is not in agreement with the reservations made to article
[...] and XII of the Convention by the Governments of the [...] the Ukrainian Soviet
Socialist Republic [...] and, therefore, they do not apply to Ecuador which accepted
without any modifications the integral text of the Convention.
Bezwaar Australië, 15-11-1950
The Australian Government does not accept any of the reservations made at the time
of signature of the Convention by [...] the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic [...].
Bezwaar België, 05-09-1951
The Government of Belgium does not accept the reservations made by [... the Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic [...].
Bezwaar Brazilië, 15-04-1952
The Government of Brazil objects to the reservations made to the Convention by [...]
the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic [...]. The Brazilian Government considers
the said reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The position taken by the Government of Brazil is founded on the Advisory Opinion
of the International Court of Justice of 28 May 1951 and on the resolution adopted
by the sixth session of the General Assembly on 12 January 1952, on reservations to
multilateral conventions.
The Brazilian Government reserves the right to draw any such legal consequences as
it may deem fit from its formal objection to the above-mentioned reservations.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 20-06-1966
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it considers the reservations made by [...] the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, [...] in respect of article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, opened for signature at Paris on 9 December 1948, to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore does not deem any State which has made or which will make such reservation a party to the Convention.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 30-01-1970
The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles [...]
XII of the Convention made by [...] the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, [...].
Palestina
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.259.2014.TREATIES-IV.1,
dated 15 May 2014, conveying a communication of the United States of America regarding
the accession of the State of Palestine to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide, dated 9 December 1948.
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 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, which will enter into force on 1 July 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.274.2014.TREATIES-IV.1,
dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Canada regarding the accession of
the State of Palestine to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide, dated 9 December 1948.
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 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, which will enter into force on 1 July 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.292.2014.TREATIES-IV.1,
dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Israel regarding the accession of
the State of Palestine to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide, dated 9 December 1948.
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 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, which will enter into force on 1 July 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.
Polen
14-11-1950
As regards article XII: Poland does not accept the provisions of this article, considering
that the Convention should apply to Non-Self-Governing Territories, including Trust
Territories.
Bezwaar Ecuador, 09-01-1951
The Government of Ecuador does not accept the reservations made by the Governments
of Poland [...] to articles [...] and XII of the Convention.
Bezwaar Australië, 19-01-1951
The Australian Government does not accept the reservations contained in the instruments
of accession of the Governments of Poland [...].
Bezwaar België, 05-09-1951
The Government of Belgium does not accept the reservations made by [...] Poland, [...].
Bezwaar Brazilië, 15-04-1952
The Government of Brazil objects to the reservations made to the Convention by [...]
Poland, [...]. The Brazilian Government considers the said reservations as incompatible
with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The position taken by the Government of Brazil is founded on the Advisory Opinion
of the International Court of Justice of 28 May 1951 and on the resolution adopted
by the sixth session of the General Assembly on 12 January 1952, on reservations to
multilateral conventions.
The Brazilian Government reserves the right to draw any such legal consequences as
it may deem fit from its formal objection to the above-mentioned reservations.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 20-06-1966
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it considers the reservations made by [...] Poland, [...] in respect of article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, opened for signature at Paris on 9 December 1948, to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore does not deem any State which has made or which will make such reservation a party to the Convention.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 30-01-1970
The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles [...]
XII of the Convention made by [...] Poland, [...].
Portugal
09-02-1999
The Portuguese Republic declares that it will interpret article VII of the Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as recognizing the obligation
to grant extradtion established therein in cases where such extradition is not prohibited
by the Constitution and other domestic legislation of the Portuguese Republic.
Roemenië
02-11-1950
As regards article XII: The People's Republic of Romania declares that it is not in agreement with article XII of the Convention, and considers that all the provisions of the Convention should apply to the Non-Self-Governing Territories, including the Trust Territories.
Bezwaar Ecuador, 09-01-1951
The Government of Ecuador does not accept the reservations made by the Governments
[...] and Romania to articles [...] and XII of the Convention.
Bezwaar Australië, 19-01-1951
The Australian Government does not accept the reservations contained in the instruments
of accession of the Governments of [...] and Romania.
Bezwaar Sri Lanka, 06-02-1951
The Government of Ceylon does not accept the reservations made by Romania to the Convention.
Bezwaar België, 05-09-1951
The Government of Belgium does not accept the reservations made by [...] Romania,
[...].
Bezwaar Brazilië, 15-04-1952
The Government of Brazil objects to the reservations made to the Convention by [...]
Romania, [...]. The Brazilian Government considers the said reservations as incompatible
with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The position taken by the Government of Brazil is founded on the Advisory Opinion
of the International Court of Justice of 28 May 1951 and on the resolution adopted
by the sixth session of the General Assembly on 12 January 1952, on reservations to
multilateral conventions.
The Brazilian Government reserves the right to draw any such legal consequences as
it may deem fit from its formal objection to the above-mentioned reservations.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 20-06-1966
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it considers the reservations made by [...] Rumania, [...] in respect of article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, opened for signature at Paris on 9 December 1948, to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore does not deem any State which has made or which will make such reservation a party to the Convention.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 30-01-1970
The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles [...]
XII of the Convention made by [...] Romania, [...].
Russische Federatie
03-05-1954
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that it is not in agreement with
article XII of the Convention and considers that all the provisions of the Convention
should extend to Non-Self-Governing Territories, including Trust Territories.
Bezwaar Ecuador, 31-03-1950
The Government of Ecuador is not in agreement with the reservations made to article
[...] and XII of the Convention by the Governments of [...] and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics and, therefore, they do not apply to Ecuador which accepted without
any modifications the integral text of the Convention.
Bezwaar Australië, 15-11-1950
The Australian Government does not accept any of the reservations made at the time
of signature of the Convention by [...] the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Bezwaar België, 05-09-1951
The Government of Belgium does not accept the reservations made by [...] and the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Bezwaar Brazilië, 15-04-1952
The Government of Brazil objects to the reservations made to the Convention by [...]
and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Brazilian Government considers the
said reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The position taken by the Government of Brazil is founded on the Advisory Opinion
of the International Court of Justice of 28 May 1951 and on the resolution adopted
by the sixth session of the General Assembly on 12 January 1952, on reservations to
multilateral conventions.
The Brazilian Government reserves the right to draw any such legal consequences as
it may deem fit from its formal objection to the above-mentioned reservations.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 20-06-1966
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it considers the reservations made by [...] and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in respect of article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, opened for signature at Paris on 9 December 1948, to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore does not deem any State which has made or which will make such reservation a party to the Convention.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 30-01-1970
The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles [...]
XII of the Convention made by [...] the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [...].
Rwanda
15-12-2008
I, [...], Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, hereby declare that the Government
of the Republic of Rwanda, after having examined Rwanda’s reservation to article 9
of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted
at New York on 9 December 1948, and, in accordance with Act No. 65/2007 of 31 December
2007 which provides for the withdrawal of the said reservation, has withdrawn the
reservation.
Servië
15-06-1993
Considering the fact that the replacement of sovereignty on the part of the territory of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia previously comprising the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was carried out contrary to the rules of international law, the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia herewith states that it does not consider the so-called Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, but does consider that the so-called Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is bound by the obligation to respect the norms on preventing and punishing the crime of genocide in accordance with general international law irrespective of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
12-03-2001
The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia does not consider itself bound by Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and, therefore, before any dispute to which the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a party may be validly submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this Article, the specific and explicit consent of the FRY is required in each case.
Bezwaar Kroatië, 18-05-2001
The Government of the Republic of Croatia objects to the deposition of the instrument
of accession of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, due to the fact that the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia is already bound by the Convention since its emergence as one of the
five equal successor states to the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
This fact was confirmed by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in its Declaration of
27 April 1992, as communicated to the Secretary-General (UN doc. A/46/915). Notwithstanding
the political reasoning behind it, in its 1992 Declaration the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia stated that it "shall strictly abide by all the commitments that the former
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia assumed internationally.
In this regard the Republic of Croatia notes in particular the decision of the International
Court of Justice in its Judgement of 11 July 1996 that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
"was bound by provisions of the [Genocide] Convention on the date of the filing of
[the Application by Bosnia and Herzegovina], namely on 20 March 1993" (ICJ Reports
1996, p. 595, at para. 17).
The Government of the Republic of Croatia further objects to the reservation made
by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in respect of Article IX of the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and considers it to be incompatible
with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Republic of Croatia
considers the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
to be fully in force and applicable between the Republic of Croatia and the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia, including Article IX.
The Government of the Republic of Croatia deems that neither the purported way of
becoming a party to the Genocide Convention ex nunc by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
nor its purported reservation, have any legal effect regarding the jurisdiction of
the International Court of Justice with respect to the pending proceedings initiated
before the International Court of Justice by the Republic of Croatia against the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia pursuant to the Genocide Convention.
Bezwaar Bosnië en Herzegovina, 27-12-2001
On 29 June 2001, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of
Macedonia, the Republic of Slovenia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia signed
an "Agreement on Succession Issues" in which these States, among other things, declare
that they are "in sovereign equality the five successor States to the former Socialist
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". A copy of the Agreement is enclosed. [Copy not reproduced
herein.] For this reason, there can be no question of "accession", but rather there
is an issue of succession. This, in itself, implies that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
has effectively succeeded the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as of
27 April 1992 (the date of the proclamation of the FRY) as a Party to the Genocide
Convention.
Apart from that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia upon its proclamation on 27 April
1992 declared - and communicated this to the Secretary-General that it would "strictly
abide by all the commitments that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia assumed
internationally"(UN Doc. A/46/915).
For these two reasons it is not possible for the FRY to effectively lay down a reservation
with regards to part of the Genocide Convention (i.e. Article IX of the Convention)
several years after 27 April 1992, the day on which FRY became bound to the Genocide
Convention in its entirety. Bosnia and Herzegovina refers to Articles 2 (1) (d) and
19 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which explicitly states that
a reservation may only be formulated "when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving
or acceding to a treaty".
The Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina therefore deems the so-called "Notification
of Accession to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(1948)" submitted by the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to be null
and void. Moreover, the International Court of Justice declared in its Judgement of
11 July 1996, "Yugoslavia was bound by the provisions of the Convention" at least
at the date of the filing of the Application in the case introduced by Bosnia and
Herzegovina on 20 March 1993/ICJ Rep. 1996, p.610, para. 17). The Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia continues to be bound under the same conditions, that is without any
reservation.
Bezwaar Zweden, 02-04-2002
The Government of Sweden has taken note of the Secretary-General's circular notification 164.2001.Treaties.1 of 15 March 2001, stating the intent of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to accede, with a reservation, to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Government of Sweden regards the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as one successor state to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and, as such, a Party to the Convention from the date of the entering into force of the Convention for the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Government of Sweden hereby communicates that it considers the said reservation as having been made too late, according to article 19 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and thus null and void.
Singapore
18-08-1995
That with reference to article IX of the Convention, before any dispute to which the Republic of Singapore is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the Republic of Singapore is required in each case.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 23-02-1996
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls its declaration made on 20
June 1966 on the occasion of the accession [to the said Convention].
Accordingly, the Government of the Netherlands declares that it considers the reservations
made by [...] and Singapore in respect of article IX of the Convention incompatible
with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the
Netherlands does not consider [...] and Singapore Parties to the Convention.
[...]
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 20-03-1996
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have consistently
stated that they are unable to accept reservations to article IX. In their view, these
are not the kind of reservations which intending parties to the Convention have the
right to make.
Accordingly, the Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations entered
by the Government of Singapore and [...] to article IX of the Convention.
Bezwaar Noorwegen, 14-10-1996
In [the view of the Government of Norway], reservations in respect of article IX of
the Convention are incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention.
Accordingly, the Government of Norway does not accept the reservations entered by
the Governments of Singapore and [...] to article IX of the Convention.
Venezuela
12-07-1960
With reference to article VI, notice is given that any proceedings to which Venezuela
may be a party before an international penal tribunal would be invalid without Venezuela's
prior express acceptance of the jurisdiction of such international tribunal.
With reference to article VII, notice is given that the laws in force in Venezuela
do not permit the extradition of Venezuelan nationals.
With reference to article IX, the reservation is made that the submission of a dispute
to the International Court of Justice shall be regarded as valid only when it takes
place with Venezuela's approval, signified by the express conclusion of a prior agreement
in each case.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 30-01-1970
The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles [...],
VII, [...], IX or [...] of the Convention made by [...] Venezuela.
Verenigde Arabische Emiraten
11-11-2005
The Government of the State of the United Arab Emirates, having considered the aforementioned
Convention and approved the contents thereof, formally declares its accession to the
Convention and makes a reservation with respect to article IX thereof concerning the
submission of disputes arising between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation,
application or fulfilment of this Convention, to the International Court of Justice,
at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.
Verenigde Staten van Amerika
25-11-1988
Reservations
(1) That with reference to article IX of the Convention, be fore any dispute to which
the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International
Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the United States is
required in each case.
(2) That nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other action
by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States
as interpreted by the United States.
Understandings
(1) That the term `intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial,
or religious group as such' appearing in article II means the specific intent to destroy,
in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as
such by the acts specified in article II.
(2) That the term `mental harm' in article II (b) means permanent impairment of mental
faculties through drugs, torture or similar techniques.
(3) That the pledge to grant extradition in accordance with a state's laws and treaties
in force found in article VII extends only to acts which are criminal under the laws
of both the requesting and the requested state and nothing in article VI affects the
right of any state to bring to trial before its own tribunals any of its nationals
for acts committed outside a state.
(4) That acts in the course of armed conflicts committed without the specific intent
required by article II are not sufficient to constitute genocide as defined by this
Convention.
(5) That with regard to the reference to an international penal tribunal in article
VI of the Convention, the United States declares that it reserves the right to effect
its participation in any such tribunal only by a treaty entered into specifically
for that purpose with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Bezwaar Finland, 22-12-1989
With respect to reservation (2); In the view of the Government of Finland this reservation
is subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a
party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure
to perform a treaty.
Bezwaar Ierland, 22-12-1989
The Government of Ireland is unable to accept the second reservation made by the United States of America on the occasion of its ratification of the [said] Convention on the grounds that as a generally accepted rule of international law a party to an international agreement may not, by invoking the terms of its internal law, purport to override the provisions of the Agreement.
Bezwaar Noorwegen, 22-12-1989
With regard to reservation (2); In the view of the Government of Norway this reservation
is subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a
party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure
to perform a treaty.
Bezwaar Zweden, 22-12-1989
With regard to reservation (2); The Government of Sweden is of the view that a State
party to the Convention may not invoke the provisions of its national legislation,
including the Constitution, to justify that it does not fulfil its obligations under
the Convention and therefore objects to the reservation.
This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention
between Sweden and the United States of America.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 22-12-1989
The Government of the United Kingdom have consistently stated that they are unable
to accept reservations to article IX. Accordingly, in conformity with the attitude
adopted by them in previous cases, the Government of the United Kingdom do not accept
the first reservation entered by the United States of America.
The Government of the United Kingdom object to the second reservation entered by the
United States of America. It creates uncertainty as to the extent of the obligations
which the Government of the United States of America is prepared to assume with regard
to the Convention.
Bezwaar Denemarken, 27-12-1989
With regard to reservation (2); In the view of the Government of Denmark this reservation is subject to general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty.
Bezwaar Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der, 27-12-1989
As concerns the first reservation, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
recalls its declaration, made on 20 June 1966 on the occasion of the accession of
the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the Convention [...] stating that in its opinion
the reservations in respect of article IX of the Convention, made at that time by
a number of states, were incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention,
and that the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands did not consider states
making such reservations parties to the Convention. Accordingly, the Government of
the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not consider the United States of America a party
to the Convention. [...].
As the Convention may come into force between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the
United States of America as a result of the latter withdrawing its reservation in
respect of article IX, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands deems it useful
to express the following position on the second reservation of the United States of
America:
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to this reservation on the
ground that it creates uncertainty as to the extent of the obligations the Government
of the United States of America is prepared to assume with regard to the Convention.
Moreover, any failure by the United States of America to act upon the obligations
contained in the Convention on the ground that such action would be prohibited by
the constitution of the United States would be contrary to the generally accepted
rule of international law, as laid down in article 27 of the Vienna Convention on
the law of treaties (Vienna, 23 May 1969).
Bezwaar Italië, 29-12-1989
The Government of the Republic of Italy objects to the second reservation entered by the United States of America. It creates uncertainty as to the extent of the obligations which the Government of the United States of America is prepared to assume with regard to the Convention.
Bezwaar Spanje, 29-12-1989
With regard to reservation (2); Spain interprets the reservation entered by the United
States of America to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948
[...] to mean that legislation or other action by the United States of America will
continue to be in accordance with the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Bezwaar Duitsland, 11-01-1990
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has taken note of the declarations made under the heading "Reservations" by the Government of the United States of America upon ratification of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany interprets paragraph (2) of the said declarations as a reference to article V of the Convention and therefore as not in any way affecting the obligations of the United States of America as a State Party to the Convention.
Bezwaar Griekenland, 26-01-1990
The Government of the Hellenic Republic cannot accept the first reservation entered
by the United States of America upon ratifying the Agreement on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, for it considers such a reservation to be in
compatible with the Convention.
In respect of the second reservation; In view of the Government of the Hellenic Republic
this reservation is subject to general principle of treaty interpretation according
to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification
for failure to perform a treaty.
Bezwaar Mexico, 04-06-1990
The Government of Mexico believes that the reservation made by the United States Government
to article IX of the aforesaid Convention should be considered invalid because it
is not in keeping with the object and purpose of the Convention, nor with the principle
governing the interpretation of treaties whereby no State can invoke provisions of
its domestic law as a reason for not complying with a treaty.
If the aforementioned reservation were applied, it would give rise to a situation
of uncertainty as to the scope of the obligations which the United States Government
would assume with respect to the Convention.
Mexico's objection to the reservation in question should not be interpreted as preventing
the entry into force of the 1948 Convention between the [Mexican] Government and the
United States Government.
Bezwaar Estland, 21-10-1991
With regard to reservation (2); the Estonian Government objects to this reservation on the grounds that it creates uncertainty, as to the extent of the obligations the Government of the United States of America is prepared to assume with regard to the Convention. According to article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, no party may invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for failure to perform a treaty.
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.
Vietnam
09-06-1981
1. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam does not consider itself bound by article IX
of the Convention which provides the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice
in solving disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation,
application or fulfilment of the Convention at the request of any of the parties to
disputes. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam is of the view that, regarding the jurisdiction
of the International Court of Justice in solving disputes referred to in article IX
of the Convention, the consent of the parties to the disputes except the criminals
is diametrically necessary for the submission of a given dispute to the International
Court of Justice for decision.
2. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam does not accept article XII of the Convention
and considers that all provisions of the Convention should also extend to Non-Self-Governing
Territories, including Trust Territories.
3. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam considers that article XI is of a discriminatory
nature, depriving a number of States of the opportunity to become parties to the Convention,
and holds that the Convention should be open for accession by all States.
Bezwaar Cambodja, 09-11-1981
The Government of Democratic Kampuchea, as a party to the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, considers that the signing of that Convention
by the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam has no legal force, because
it is no more than a cynical, macabre charade intended to camouflage the foul crimes
of genocide committed by the 250,000 soldiers of the Vietnamese invasion army in Kampuchea.
It is an odious insult to the memory of the more than 2,500,000 Kampucheans who have
been massacred by these same Vietnamese armed forces using conventional weapons, chemical
weapons and the weapon of famine, created deliberately by them for the purpose of
eliminating all national resistance at its source.
It is also a gross insult to hundreds of thousands of Laotians who have been massacred
or compelled to take refuge abroad since the occupation of Laos by the Socialist Republic
of Viet Nam, to the Hmong national minority in Laos, exterminated by Vietnamese conventional
and chemical weapons and, finally, to over a million Vietnamese "boat people" who
died at sea or sought refuge abroad in their flight to escape the repression carried
out in Viet Nam by the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam.
This shameless accession by the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam violates and discredits
the noble principles and ideals of the United Nations and jeopardizes the prestige
and moral authority of our world Organization. It represents an arrogant challenge
to the international community, which is well aware of these crimes of genocide committed
by the Vietnamese army in Kampuchea, has constantly denounced and condemned them since
25 December 1978, the date on which the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea began, and
demands that these Vietnamese crimes of genocide be brought to an end by the total
withdrawal of the Vietnamese forces from Kampuchea and the restoration of the inalienable
right of the people of Kampuchea to decide its own destiny without any foreign interference,
as provided in United Nations resolutions 34/22, 35/6 and 36/5.
Bezwaar Verenigd Koninkrijk, 26-08-1983
With regard to statements made by Viet Nam concerning articles IX and XII and [...]: The Government of the United Kingdom have [...] consistently stated that they are unable to accept reservations to [article IX]. Likewise, in conformity with the attitude adopted by them in previous cases, the Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservation entered by Viet Nam relating to article XII.