In accordance with Article 32 of Decree 801/1972 of 24 March on the management of the activity of the State Administration in the field of International Treaties,

This Technical General Secretariat has provided the publication, for general knowledge, of communications relating to International Treaties in which Spain is a party, received at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs between 1 January. of January 1997 and 30 April 1997.

A. POLITICIANS AND DIPLOMATS

A. A. POLICE.

Mandatory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. 'Official Journal of the State' of 16 November 1990.

Paraguay. 25 September 1996. Declaration.

That, having the Republic of Paraguay signed the United Nations Charter on June 26, 1945 in San Francisco, and ratified on October 12 of the same year,

Having regard to and scrutinised the text of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial body of the United Nations, in which Article 36 (2) empowers the States Parties to the Statute to provide for the possibility of declare at any time and without special agreement the recognition of the mandatory jurisdiction of the said Court

and

Having the National Congress approved the said recognition by Law No. 913 of 7 August 1996,

Therefore:

I accept, on behalf of the Government of Paraguay, the mandatory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice based in The Hague, under the condition of reciprocity with respect to other States that accept the same obligation to all disputes referred to in Article 36 (2) of the Statute of that Court. This declaration shall have effect only for any disputes subsequent to the date of this declaration.

In faith of which, he signed the present that is sealed with the National Seal and is endorsed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ruben Melgarejo Lanzoni, in the city of Asunción, capital of the Republic of Paraguay, to the seventeen days of the month of September 1996.

Statute of the Council of Europe. London, May 5, 1949. Official Gazette of the State of 1 March 1978.

Croatia. 6 November 1996. Accession.

Third Additional Protocol to the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe (made in Strasbourg on 6 March 1959) and to the Statute amending the Social Development Fund of the Council of Europe. 'Official Journal of the State' of 9 January 1997.

Reservations and Statements

Germany:

Reserve made at the time of signature, on March 18, 1959, and confirmed at the time of deposit of the instrument of ratification.

Federal Republic of Germany will not be able to grant the loans from the Reinstallation Fund more favourable conditions than those granted to its own borrowings or to the loans granted by the Federal Republic of Germany. Loans from other international organisations.

Therefore, paragraph 4 of Article 7 will not imply any obligation on the part of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to adopt the provisions mentioned therein.

Statement contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany dated 25 September 1963, registered at the General Secretariat on the same date.

The Third Additional Protocol to the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe of 6 March 1959 will also apply to the Land of Berlin with effect from 8 August 1963, the date on which it entered into for the Federal Republic of Germany.

Italy:

Reserve made at the time of signature, on March 6, 1959, and confirmed at the time of deposit of the instrument of ratification, on March 15, 1963.

With regard to Article 3, Italy reserves the right, in the light of the general principles of its own legal order, not to enforce the judgments handed down in an arbitral proceedings by way of enforceability. in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 (3), where such judgments are contrary to the national public order.

Liechtenstein:

Reserve and statements contained in the instrument of accession, deposited on 11 December 1979.

Reservations.

Article 7, second paragraph:

With regard to the exemption from taxes, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 7, the Principality of Liechtenstein may not grant to the borrowings contracted by the Reinstallation Fund more favourable conditions than those granted to their own borrowings under the law of Liechtenstein. Therefore, the second paragraph of Article 7 shall not entail any undertaking by the Principality of Liechtenstein to adopt the provisions laid down therein.

point (b) of the fourth paragraph of Article 7:

With regard to the exemption or reimbursement of indirect taxes and charges included in the price to be paid for movable or immovable property or for payment for services, as provided for in point (b) of the Fourth paragraph of Article 7, the Principality of Liechtenstein may not grant the Fund, in respect of the purchase of goods or services in Liechtenstein for use in the territory of Liechtenstein, more In the case of the Commission, the Commission may, in the case of the Commission, take into account the Liechtenstein. Therefore, Article 7 (4) (b) (b) does not imply any undertaking by the Principality of Liechtenstein to adopt the provisions laid down in that clause in respect of goods or services acquired by the Fund and used in the territory of Liechtenstein.

Statement:

On March 29, 1923, the Principality of Liechtenstein concluded a customs treaty with the Swiss Confederation. Under that treaty, the Principality of Liechtenstein and Switzerland form a common customs area with the effect that the Swiss legislation on imports and exports, customs duties, taxes on imports, the Stamp duties and turnover taxes are also applicable in the Principality of Liechtenstein.

Netherlands:

Reserves contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative of the Netherlands dated 8 August 1978, delivered to the Secretary-General at the time of deposit of the instrument of accession, on the same date.

1. In the Kingdom of the Netherlands, immunity from jurisdiction shall not apply in the case of offences relating to the traffic of vehicles committed by a person enjoying privileges or in the event of damage caused by a motor vehicle belonging to or driven by that person.

2. The Kingdom of the Netherlands reserves the right to take account of salaries and emoluments exempted under Article 13 of the Third Protocol in accordance with Article 18 of the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe, done at Paris on 2 September 1949, when determining the taxes to be applied to revenue from other sources. It is understood that the exemption referred to in Article 13 of the Third Protocol in accordance with Article 18 of the General Agreement does not apply to pensions paid to former employees of the Fund.

Statement contained in the instrument of accession, deposited on 8 August 1978.

The Protocol will apply to the Kingdom in Europe.

Sweden:

Reserve contained in the instrument of accession, deposited on 18 September 1992.

Sweden makes the reservation that it will not be required by the second paragraph of Article 3, in which it is given the execution of judgments given in an arbitral proceedings in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 2.

Switzerland:

Reserves made at the time of deposit of the instrument of accession on 13 December 1973.

Second paragraph of Article 7:

With regard to the tax exemption, the Swiss Confederation will not be able to grant the loans contracted by the Reinstallation Fund more favourable conditions than those granted to its own borrowings. Therefore, the second paragraph of Article 7 does not imply any commitment on the part of the Swiss Confederation to adopt the provisions laid down therein.

point (b) of the fourth paragraph of Article 7:

As regards the exemption or reimbursement of indirect taxes and charges included in the price to be paid for movable or immovable property or for payment for services, the Swiss Confederation does not may grant to the Fund, in respect of the acquisition by the Fund of goods or services in Switzerland intended for use on the territory of Switzerland, more favourable conditions than those granted to its own purchases of goods or services services. Therefore, Article 7 (4) (b) does not imply any commitment on the part of the Swiss Confederation to adopt the provisions laid down in that clause in respect of goods or services acquired by the Fund and used in the territory of Switzerland.

Slovenia. March 18, 1997. Accession.

A. B. HUMAN RIGHTS.

Convention for the Prevention and Sanction of the Crime of Genocide. New York, 9 December 1948. "Official State Gazette" of 8 February 1969.

Norway. 14 October 1996. Communication on the reservation made by Malaysia and Singapore at the time of accession.

" The Government of Norway has taken note of the reservations made by Singapore and Malaysia at the time of the accession to the Convention for the Prevention and Sanction of the Crime of Genocide. In their view, the reservations relating to Article IX of the Convention are incompatible with the purpose and purpose of the said Convention. The Government of Norway therefore does not accept the reservations made by the Governments of Singapore and Malaysia in relation to Article IX of the Convention. '

Burundi. 6 January 1997. Accession. Entry into force: 6 April 1997.

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Rome, 4 November 1950. 'Official Journal of the State' of 10 October 1979.

Albania. 2 October 1996. Ratification.

Italy. December 13, 1997. Renewal. Declaration made in accordance with Articles 25 and 46 recognising for a period of three years, from 1 January 1997, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights and the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice European Human Rights.

have the honour to declare, in accordance with Article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, that the Italian Government recognises the competence of the Commission European Human Rights, under the same conditions as those already indicated in its declaration of 28 June 1973, for a further period of three years, beginning on 1 January 1997 and ending on 31 December 1999.

I have the honour to declare, in accordance with Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, that the Italian Government recognises as compulsory the 'ipso facto' the the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, under the same conditions as those already indicated in its declaration of 28 June 1973, for a further period of three years, beginning on 1 January 1997 and ending on 31 December 1999.

Convention on the Status of Refugees. Geneva, 28 July 1951.

Protocol on the Status of Refugees. New York, January 31, 1967. "Official State Gazette" of 21 October 1978.

Kyrgyzstan. 8 October 1996. Accession to the Convention and Protocol with the following declaration. "... [The Kyrgyz Republic] ... is considered to be bound by the provisions of Article 1B (1) (b) (1) thereof, i.e." events occurring in Europe or elsewhere before 1 January 1951 ". '

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. September 9, 1996. The extension of the effects of the Protocol to Jersey took effect on 20 May 1996 in accordance with the provisions of Article 40 (2) of the Convention.

Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Paris, March 20, 1952. 'Official Journal of the State' of 12 January 1991.

Albania. 2 October 1996. Signature and ratification with the following reservation and Explanatory note:

Reserve contained in the instrument of ratification, deposited on October 2, 1996.

Article 3 of the Protocol shall apply in accordance with the provisions of the Albanian laws No 8001 of 22 September 1995 and No 8043 of 30 November 1995 for a period of five years from the date of entry into force of the Protocol. deposit of the instrument of ratification.

Explanatory note contained in a Verbal letter delivered to the Secretary-General at the time of deposit of the instrument of ratification on 2 October 1996.

In accordance with Article 64 of the Convention, the Republic of Albania wishes to submit its reservations in relation to Article 3 of the Protocol, in the sense that the provisions of that Article shall be applied in accordance with the provisions of Article 64 of the Convention. provisions of laws No 8001 of 22 September 1995 and 8043 of 30 November 1995 of the Republic of Albania for a period of five years from the date of deposit of the instrument of ratification.

In Law No 8001 of 22 September 1995 on genocide and crimes against humanity committed in Albania during the Communist regime for political, ideological and religious reasons, and in Law No 8043, of 30 November 1995, 'concerning the control of public and other persons related to the protection of the democratic State', it is established, inter alia, that until 31 December 2001 they may not be elected to the the authors, the conspirators or the executors of crimes against the humanity committed in Albania during the communist regime for political, ideological or religious reasons and who until 31 March 1991 had been former members or alternate members of the Political Bureau, secretaries or members of the Central Committee of the Party of Labor of Albania (and of the Communist Party of Albania), the former First Secretaries of the District Committee of Labor and other positions of similar rank, the persons employed in the sectors related to the security of the State in the Central Committee of the Party of Labor of Albania, the former ministers, former Members of the Presidential Council, former presidents of the Supreme Court, former attorneys general, former parliamentarians, with the exception of all those persons who acted in a manner contrary to the official line and who resigned publicly, thus former employees of the State security service, former State security collaborators and the persons who acted as witnesses against the defendant in political trials, former investigators, judges in proceedings special politicians, former agents of certain intelligence services or their counterparts.

Recently, by Law No 8151 of 12 September 1996 on the amendment of Law No 7573 of 16 June 1992 on the election of the organs of the local authorities, the People's Assembly of the People's Republic of the Republic of Albania has considerably reduced the scope of Law No 8001 of 22 September 1995 on the genocide and crimes against humanity committed in Albania during the Communist regime for reasons of political, ideological and religious ", as well as that of Law No 8043 of 31 November 1995, "concerning the control of public office and other persons related to the protection of the democratic state." As a result of this amendment, the scope of the aforementioned laws does not include candidates and persons elected to the local councils, nor to the candidates and persons elected to the presidency of the municipalities. With regard to the specific figures for local elections, and as a result of the recent changes, the number of cases that should have been monitored is reduced from about 60,000 candidates for 5,764 to about 800. candidates for 64 posts.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs calls upon the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe to attach this explanatory note to the Albanian position as a formal annex to the instrument of ratification.

Convention on the Political Rights of Women. New York, March 31, 1953. "Official State Gazette" of 23 April 1974.

Kyrgyzstan. February 10, 1997. Accession. Entry into force: 11 May 1997.

Protocol No 3 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending Articles 29, 30 and 34 of the Convention. Strasbourg, 6 May 1963. 'Official Journal of the State' of 10 October 1979.

Albania. 2 October 1996. Ratification.

Protocol No 5 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending Articles 22 and 40 of the Convention. Strasbourg, 20 January 1966. 'Official Journal of the State' of 10 October 1979.

Albania. 2 October 1996. Ratification.

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. New York, 7 March 1966. 'Official Journal of the State' of 17 May 1969 and 5 November 1982.

Luxembourg. July 22, 1996. Declaration recognising the competence of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination under Article 14 (1).

In accordance with Article 14 (1) of the said Convention, Luxembourg declares that it recognises the competence of the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive and examine communications from persons or groups of persons within their jurisdiction who claim to be the victims of a breach by Luxembourg of any of the rights set out in the Convention.

On the same date, the Luxembourg Government made the following statement in accordance with Article 14 (2) of the said Convention.

In accordance with Article 14 (2) of the abovementioned Convention, the "Commission special permanent contre la discrimination", set up in May 1996 in accordance with Article 24 of the Law of 27 July 1993 on integration foreign nationals, shall be competent to receive and examine petitions from persons and groups of persons within the jurisdiction of Luxembourg who claim to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set out in the Convention.

Azerbaijan. August 16, 1996. Accession. Entry into force: 15 September 1996.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. New York, 16 December 1966. 'Official Journal of the State' of 30 April 1977.

Thailand. 29 October 1996. Accession with the following interpretative statement:

1. The expression 'free determination' in Article 1 (1) of the Covenant shall be deemed to be compatible with the expression contained in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights. June 25, 1993.

2. With regard to Article 6 (5) of the Covenant, the Thai Criminal Code requires the courts to take into account the youth of the offender as a mitigating circumstance when issuing a judgment or in some cases grants them a wide margin. of discretion in this respect. While Article 74 of the Code does not allow for the imposition of any penalty on persons under the age of 14, Article 75 of the Code provides that, in the event of any person over the age of 14 years but less than Seventeen commits an act typified by law as a crime, the court will take into account the sense of responsibility and any other aspects relating to the perpetrator of the offence to resolve whether it is appropriate or not to dictate judgment in which it is impose a penalty. If the court does not consider it appropriate to give judgment by imposing a penalty, it shall proceed in accordance with Article 74 (that is, take other corrective measures which do not constitute penalties) or, if the court considers it appropriate to issue The Court of First Instance held that the Court of Justice held that the Court of Justice held that the Court of First Instance held a Article 76 of the same Code also states that when any person over seventeen but not more than twenty commits an act which is punishable by law as a criminal offence, the court may, if it considers it appropriate, reduce by one third or the half the extent of the penalty provided for that crime. That reduction in the scope of the penalty will prevent the court from imposing the death penalty. As a result, although in theory the death penalty can be imposed for offences committed by persons under 18 years of age but not less than 17 years, the court always exercises the discretion provided for in Article 75 for reduce the scope of the penalty, so in practice no person under the age of eighteen has been sentenced to death. Therefore, Thailand considers that it is in fact already complying with the principles enshrined in that Article.

3. With regard to Article 9 (3) of the Covenant, Article 87 (3) of the Thai Code of Criminal Procedure states that the detainees shall not be held in custody for more than forty-eight hours from the time of his arrival in the office of the administrative officer or the police, but it will not be included in those forty-eight hours the time taken to bring the detainee before the court. Where it is necessary to carry out an investigation or any other need arise, the period of 40-eight hours may be extended for the duration of that need, but that period shall not exceed in any case of seven days.

4. With regard to Article 20 of the Covenant, the term "war" appearing in paragraph 1 is interpreted by Thailand as "war with violation of international law."

In accordance with Article 49 (2), the Pact will enter into force for Thailand three months after the date of deposit of the instrument, i.e. on 29 January 1997.

Ivory Coast. March 5, 1997. Accession. Entry into force: 5 June 1997.

Peru. 8 February, 6 May, 29 August, 5 November 1996. Notification in accordance with article 4 (3) of the present Covenant, whereby the state of emergency was extended to various departments, provinces and districts of Peru.

Summary table of the Decrees for which the state of emergency was extended in various departments, provinces and districts of Peru between 6 October 1995 and 6 October 1996

Date

of the Decree/Number

days/Date of

Entry into Force/Departments, Provinces and Districts/Supreme Decree Number

065-95-DE/CCFFAA

079-95-DE/CCFFAA

007

014-96-DE/CCFFAA

032-96-DE/CCFFAA

047-96-DE/CCFFAA

054-96-DE/CCFFAA/5-10-95

6-12-95

4-2-96

2-4-96

7-6-96

6-8-96

30-9-96/60

60

60

60

60

60

60/8-10-95

7-12-95

5-2-96

5-4-96

8-6-96

7-8-96

6-10-96/The department of Huanuco (with the exception of the provinces of Puerto Inca, Yarowillca and Dos de Mayo and the Huacrachuco district of Marañón province) and San Martín and in the Yurimaguas district of the province of Alto Amazonas (department of Loreto).

067-95-DE/CCFFAA

080-95-DE/CCFFAA

009/5-10-95

7-12-95

5-2-96/60

60

60/9-10-95

8-12-95

6-2-96/The provinces of Chincheros, Andahuaylas, Abancay and Aymaraes (department of Apurimac).

015 -96-DE/CCFFAA

031-96-DE/CCFFAA

045-96-DE/CCFFAA

052-96-DE/CCFFAA/2-4-96

7-6-96

6-8-96

30-9-96/60

60

60

60/6-4-96

8-6-96

7-8-96

6-10-96/The provinces of Chincheros and Andahuaylas (department of Apurimac).

Province of Oxapampa (department of Pasco); the provinces of Huancayo, Satipo and Chanchamayo (department of Junin); the provinces of Huancavelica, Castrovirreyna and Huaytara (department of Huancavelica); Huamanga, Lucanas, Cangallo and La Mar (department of Ayacucho); the districts of Quimbiri and Pichari of the province of the Convention (department of Cuzco). /066-95-DE/CCFFAA

078-95-DE/CCFFAA/5-10-95

6-12-95/60

60/8-10-95

7-12-95

Province of Oxapampa (department of Pasco); the provinces of Satipo and Chanchamayo (department of Junin); the provinces of Huancavelica, Castrovirreyna and Huaytara (department of Huancavelica); the provinces of Huamanga, Lucanas, Cangallo and La Mar (department of Ayacucho); the districts of Quimbiri and Pichari of the province of the Convention (department of Cuzco). /008/4-2-96/60/5-2-95

Province of Oxapampa (department of Pasco); the provinces of Satipo and Chanchamayo (department of Junin); the provinces of Huancavelica, Castrovirreyna and Huaytara (department of Huancavelica); the provinces of Huamanga, Cangallo y La Mar (department of Ayacucho); the districts of Quimbiri and Pichari of the province of the Convention (department of Cuzco). /013-00-DE/CCFFAA

030-96-DE/CCFFAA

046-96-DE/CCFFAA

053-96-DE/CCFFAA/2-4-96

7-6-96

6-8-96

30-9-96/60

60

60

60/5-4-96

8-6-96

7-8-96

6-10-96

Peru. 4 and 30 December 1996. Notification pursuant to article 4 (3) of the present Covenant extending the state of emergency to various departments, provinces and districts of Peru.

December 30, 1996. Notice in accordance with Article 4 (3) of the present Covenant that the State of Emergency has been established by Decree of the President of the Republic since 18 December 1996 for a period of 60 days in the State of Lima and the constitutional province of Callao.

The articles of the Covenant that have been repealed are 9, 12, 17 and 21.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. New York, 18 December 1979. Official Gazette of the State of 21 March 1984.

Liechtenstein. 3 October 1996. It withdrew the reservation it made to Article 9 (2) at the time of accession on 22 December 1995.

"The Principality of Liechtenstein reserves the right to apply the legislation of Liechtenstein according to which the nationality of Liechtenstein is granted under certain conditions."

Thailand. August 1, 1996. It withdraws the reservations it made at the time of accession to this Convention in so far as it relates to Article 7 and Article 10. At the same time, the Government of Thailand reiterated the statement it made at the time of accession, the content of which has not been changed. The remaining declaration and reservation will now have the following text:

" The Royal Thai Government wishes to express its interpretation that the objectives of the Convention are to eliminate discrimination against women and to grant all persons, men and women alike, equality before the law, objectives which are in accordance with the principles laid down in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand. "

Reservation:

"The Royal Thai Government is not considered to be bound by the provisions of Article 16 and Article 29 (1) of the Convention."

In accordance with Article 28 (3) of the Convention, the abovementioned notification took effect on the date received, i.e. 1 August 1996.

Bostwana. August 13, 1996. Accession. Entry into force on 12 September 1996.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. October 14, 1996. Notification by which the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland extends the effects of this Convention to Hong Kong whose international relations the United Kingdom Government of Great Britain and Ireland of the United Kingdom is responsible for North with the following reservations and statements:

" Generalities:

(a) The United Kingdom, on behalf of Hong Kong, understands that the main purpose of the Convention in accordance with the definition contained in Article 1 of the Convention is the reduction, in accordance with its provisions, of discrimination against (i) women, and therefore do not consider that the Convention imposes the obligation to repeal or amend any existing laws, regulations, customs or practices which give women more favourable treatment than men, either temporarily or in the long term. period. The commitments entered into by the United Kingdom on behalf of Hong Kong pursuant to Article 4 (1) and other provisions of the Convention shall be interpreted in line with the above.

b) The United Kingdom reserves on behalf of Hong Kong the right to continue to apply the legal provisions on immigration governing the entry, stay and exit of Hong Kong as deemed necessary in each case. time. Accordingly, the acceptance of Article 15 (4) and of the other provisions of the Convention shall be without prejudice to the provisions of the said provisions in relation to persons who are not entitled at that time, with Hong Kong's Hong Kong legislation, which is to enter and remain in Hong Kong.

c) In the light of the definition contained in Article 1, the extension by the United Kingdom of its ratification to Hong Kong is made on the understanding that none of its obligations in Hong Kong under the Convention will be extensive to the matters of religious confessions or orders.

(d) The laws applicable in the New Territories shall continue to apply which allow indigenous male villagers to exercise certain rights in respect of property and to provide for leased concessions. in respect of land or property owned by indigenous persons or by their legal successors by the male line.

Specific articles:

Article 9.

The British Nationality Act of 1981, which entered into force in January 1983, is based on principles which do not allow discrimination against women within the meaning of Article 1 in relation to the acquisition, change or retention of their nationality or in relation to the nationality of their children. However, the acceptance by the United Kingdom of Article 9 on behalf of Hong Kong shall not invalidate the continuation of certain temporary or transitional provisions, which shall remain in force after that date.

Article 11.

The United Kingdom reserves on behalf of Hong Kong the right to apply all Hong Kong legislation and the rules on pension schemes affecting retirement pensions, survivors ' benefits and other benefits. benefits related to death or retirement (including retirement by reduction of staff), whether or not they are derived from a social security scheme.

This reservation will also apply to any future legislation that may modify or replace the aforementioned legislation or the rules on pension schemes, on the understanding that the conditions set out in such legislation shall be compatible with the obligations of the United Kingdom under the Hong Kong Convention.

The United Kingdom reserves on behalf of Hong Kong the right to apply any non-discriminatory requirement of a working period as a qualification for the application of the provisions of Article 11 (2).

Article 15.

In relation to Article 15 (3), the United Kingdom on behalf of Hong Kong understands that the intention of this provision is that only the conditions or elements of a contract or other instrument are considered to be void. which are discriminatory in the sense described, but not necessarily the contract or instrument as a whole. '

Andorra. 15 January 1997. Accession. Entry into force: 14 February 1997.

Germany. 8 October 1996. Objection to reservations and statements made by Malaysia.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the content of the declaration and reservations made by the Government of Malaysia at the time of its accession to the said Convention, in which it states: ' The Malaysian Government declares that the accession of Malaysia is subject to the interpretation that the provisions of the Convention will not be opposed to the rules of the Islamic Sharia or the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. In this respect, the Government of Malaysia is not considered to be bound by the provisions of Articles 2 (f), 5 (a), 7 (b), 9 and 16 of that Convention. '

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that such declaration and reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of Malaysia under the Convention by making them subject to the Islamic Sharia and national legislation in force and restricting the application of fundamental articles of the Convention, may raise doubts about Malaysia's commitment to the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore raises an objection to those reservations and declarations.

However, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany does not consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the Germany-Malaysia Convention.

Netherlands. 15 October 1996. Objection to reservations and statements made by Malaysia.

" The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers, in relation to the reservations made by Malaysia in respect of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, that these reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the State which the formula under the Convention is based on the general principles of national law and the Constitution, may raise doubts as to the State's commitment to the purpose of the Convention and, furthermore, to contribute to undermining the foundations of international treaties law. It is a common interest of the States that the treaties in which they have decided to be Parties are respected in terms of their object and purpose by all Parties.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands also considers that the reservations made by Malaysia in relation to Article 2 (f), Article 5 (a), Article 9 and Article 16 of the Convention are incompatible with the Purpose of the Convention.

Therefore, the Kingdom of the Netherlands makes an objection to the above reservations. Such objection shall not prevent the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Malaysia. '

Finland. 16 October 1996. Objection to reservations and statements made by Malaysia.

" The Government of Finland has examined the content of the reservations made by the Government of Malaysia at the time of its accession to the said Convention.

The reservations made by Malaysia, which consists of a general reference to the religious and national laws without specifying the content of the same and without stating unequivocally what are the provisions whose effect In the case of the Convention, it is not clear to the other Parties to the Convention the extent to which the State making the reservation is committed to the Convention, and therefore raise serious doubts as to the State's commitment to the Convention. the reserve to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Non-specific nature reserves can contribute to undermining the foundations of international human rights treaties.

The Government of Finland also recalls that Malaysia's reserves are subject to the general principle of observance of the treaties under which a Party cannot invoke the provisions of its domestic law for to justify failure to comply with its obligations under a treaty. It is a common interest of the States that the Parties to international treaties are prepared to make the necessary legislative changes in order to comply with the object and purpose of the treaty.

On the other hand, the reservations made by Malaysia and, in particular, those relating to Articles 2 (f) and 5 (a), affect the fundamental provisions of the Convention, the application of which is essential to fulfil its purpose and purpose.

The Government of Finland considers that, in its current formulation, the reservations made by Malaysia are clearly incompatible with the purpose and purpose of the said Convention and are therefore inadmissible in accordance with the Article 28 (2) of the Convention. In the light of the foregoing, the Government of Finland raises an objection to these reservations and notes that they have no legal effect. '

Norway. 16 October 1996. Objection to reservations and statements made by Malaysia.

" The Government of Norway has examined the content of the reservations made by Malaysia at the time of its accession, the text of which is as follows:

The Malaysian Government declares that the accession of Malaysia is subject to the interpretation that the provisions of the Convention will not be opposed to the Islamic Sharia rules or to the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. In this respect, the Government of Malaysia is not considered to be bound by the provisions of Articles 2 (f), 5 (a), 7 (b), 9 and 16 of that Convention. '

In the view of the Government of Norway, a declaration by which a State party intends to limit its responsibilities under the Convention on the basis of general principles of its domestic or religious laws may raise doubts about the a commitment by the State that makes the reservation with the object and purpose of the Convention and also to contribute to undermining the international law of the Treaties. In accordance with the generally recognised principles of international law of the Treaties, a State cannot invoke its domestic law in order to justify its failure to fulfil its obligations under a treaty. Furthermore, the Government of Norway considers that the reservation made by the Government of Malaysia in relation to certain provisions of the Convention is so broad that it is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, and is therefore not permitted with pursuant to Article 28 (2) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Government of Norway expresses its objection to the reservations made by the Government of Malaysia. The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to prevent the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and Malaysia.

Sweden. 25 October 1996. Communication on the reservations made by Malaysia.

"The Government of Sweden has examined the content of the reservations made by the Government of Malaysia, according to which" the accession of Malaysia is subject to the interpretation that the provisions of the Convention will not be opposed to the rules of Islamic Sharia or the Federal Constitution of Malaysia "and" the Government of Malaysia is not considered to be bound by the provisions of Articles 2 (f), 5 (a), 7 (b), 9 and 16 of that Convention ".

The Swedish Government considers that the reservations made by the Government of Malaysia are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. These reserves are not eligible under Article 28 (2) of the Convention.

In this context, the Swedish Government wishes to make the observation that the reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty raise not only doubts as to the commitment of the State that makes the reservation, but rather They also contribute to undermining the foundations of international law.

It is a common interest of the States that the treaties in which they have decided to be parties are also respected, in terms of their object and purpose, by other parties, and that the States are prepared to carry out the legislative amendments necessary to comply with those treaties.

In view of the above, the Government of Sweden is opposed to the reservations made by the Government of Malaysia. "

Finland. 16 October 1996. Objection to the reservation made by Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

" The Government of Finland has examined the contents of the amended reservation made by the Government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

A reservation consisting of a general reference to religious laws without specifying their content does not clearly indicate to the other Parties to the Convention the extent to which the State that formulates the reservation commits itself to the Convention, therefore it may raise doubts about the commitment of the State that makes the reservation with the fulfilment of its obligations under the Convention. In the view of the Government of Finland, such a reservation is also subject to the general principle of observance of the Treaties, under which a Party cannot invoke the provisions of its domestic law to justify the non-compliance with a treaty.

The Government of Finland therefore opposes the reservation made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the aforementioned Convention. "

Norway. 30 October 1996. Objection to the reservation made by Lesotho.

" The Government of Norway has examined the content of the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Lesotho at the time of ratification, the text of which is as follows:

" The Government of the Kingdom of Lesotho declares that it is not considered bound by Article 2 in so far as it opposes the constitutional provisions of Lesotho concerning the succession to the throne of the Kingdom of Lesotho and the legislation on the succession to the head of the tribes. The ratification by the Government of Lesotho is made on the understanding that none of its obligations under the Convention, and in particular Article 2 (e), will be considered to affect aspects relating to religious confessions.

On the other hand, the Government of Lesotho declares that it will not adopt legislative measures under the Convention when such measures are incompatible with the Constitution of Lesotho. "

The Government of Norway considers that the last part of the reservation made by the Kingdom of Lesotho, for its unlimited and indefinite nature, is inadmissible under international law. A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention under the general principles of its domestic law may raise doubts as to the commitment of the State which makes the reservation with the object and purpose. the Convention and also contribute to undermining the foundations of international treaties law. In accordance with the generally recognised principles of international law of the Treaties, a State cannot invoke its domestic law to justify its failure to fulfil its obligations under a treaty. For these reasons, the Government of Norway is opposed to the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Lesotho.

The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to prevent the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and the Kingdom of Lesotho. "

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. New York, 10 December 1984. 'Official Journal of the State' of 9 November 1987.

Honduras. 5 December 1996. Accession. Entry into force: 4 January 1997.

Czech Republic. September 3, 1996. It withdraws the reservation on Article 20 which it maintained after the succession in respect of the aforementioned Convention, a reservation which was formulated by Czechoslovakia at the time of signature and confirmed at the time of ratification:

In accordance with Article 28 (1), the Slovak Socialist Republic does not recognise the competence of the Committee against Torture as defined in Article 20 of the Convention.

II

Also, on the same date, the Secretary-General received the following statement from the Government of the Czech Republic, recognising the competence of the Committee against Torture and other cruel, inhuman or cruel treatment or punishment. demeaning under Articles 21 and 22 of the said Convention.

" ... the Czech Republic declares that, in accordance with Article 1 (1) of the Convention, it recognises the competence of the Committee to receive and examine communications in which a State party claims that another State party does not is fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. The Czech Republic declares that, in accordance with Article 22 (1) of the Convention, it recognises the competence of the Committee to receive and examine communications from or on behalf of individuals within its jurisdiction which it claims be victims of an infringement of the provisions of the Convention by a State party. "

Kenya. 21 February 1997. Accession. Entry into force: 23 March 1997.

Iceland. 23 October 1996. Ratification. Entry into force: 22 November 1996. Declaration recognising the competence of the Committee against Torture.

" ... on behalf of the Government of Iceland, in accordance with Article 21 (1) of the Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which Iceland recognises the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and examine communications in which a State party reports that another State party does not fulfil its obligations under the Convention and, in accordance with Article 22 (1) of the Convention, that Iceland recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and examine communications from individuals subject to their jurisdiction or on behalf of their jurisdiction to be victims of an infringement of the provisions of the Convention by a State party. '

Senegal. 16 October 1996. Declaration recognising the competence of the Committee against Torture.

The Government of the Republic of Senegal declares, in accordance with Article 21 (1) of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and examine communications in which a State The parties also complained that another State party does not fulfil its obligations under the Convention.

The Government of the Republic of Senegal declares, in accordance with Article 22 (1) of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and examine the communication of individuals subject to their jurisdiction or on behalf of their jurisdiction to be victims of an infringement of the provisions of the Convention by a State party.

Protocol No 8 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Vienna, 19 March 1985. 'Official Journal of the State' of 11 November 1989.

Albania. 2 October 1996. Ratification.

European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Human or Degrading Peñas or Tratos

Strasbourg, 26 November 1987. 'Official Journal of the State' of 5 July 1989.

Albania. 2 October 1996. Signature and ratification. Entry into force: 1 February 1997.

Estonia. 6 November 1996. Ratification. Entry into force: 1 March 1997.

Andorra. 28 October 1996. Signed: 6 January 1997. Ratification. Entry into force: 1 May 1997.

The Netherlands. 19 March 1997. Notification made in accordance with Article 23 of the Convention.

Competent Authority:

Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Economic Cooperation Department.

Interregional and Regional.

Organisations Division.

Bezuidenhoutseweg 67.

NL-2594 AC.

The Hague.

Link agent:

Ms Welment van Aardenne.

Deputy Head Regional and Global.

Organisations Division.

Human Rights, Good Governance and Democratization Department.

Germany. 21 January 1997. Notification made in accordance with Article 23 of the Convention.

Link agent:

M. Christian Lehmann.

Ministeraldirent.

Federal Ministry of Justice.

D-53170 Bonn.

M. Weckerling.

Federal Ministry of Justice.

D-53170 Bonn.

Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York, 20 November 1989. 'Official Journal of the State' of 31 December 1990.

Germany. 4 September 1996. Objection concerning the reservation made by Singapore at the time of accession.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the contents of the Government of Singapore's reservation contained in the instrument of ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under that reservation (3), the Government of Singapore makes a general reservation in respect of any provisions of the Convention which go beyond the provisions of the existing national legislation. Furthermore, the interpretation contained in the aforementioned reservation (2) contradicts the clear and unconditional content of Articles 19 and 37 of the Convention. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of Singapore under the Convention by limiting them to the provisions of the national legislation in force and restricting the application of the fundamental articles of the Convention, may raise doubts about the commitment of Singapore to the object and purpose of the Convention. It is a common interest of the States that the treaties in which they have decided to be a party are respected, in terms of their object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore raises an objection to that reservation.

This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and Singapore.

Belgium. 26 September 1996. Objection regarding the declaration and reservations made by Singapore at the time

of accession.

The Government of Belgium has taken note of the statements and reservations expressed by Singapore regarding the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government considers that the second paragraph of the declarations, concerning Articles 19 and 37 of the Convention, and the third paragraph of the reserves, concerning the constitutional limits for the acceptance of the obligations contained in the Convention, are contrary to the purposes of the Convention and therefore have no effect under international law.

Italy. 4 October 1996. Objection concerning the reservation made by Singapore at the time of the adhetion.

" The Government of the Italian Republic has examined the reservation contained in the instrument of accession of the Republic of Singapore, which formulates a general reservation in respect of any provisions that are contrary to its law internal constitutional.

The Government of the Italian Republic considers that such a reserve, which seeks to limit Singapore's responsibilities under the Convention by standing by its constitutional right, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Singapore. Singapore with the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the foundations of international treaties law. It is a common interest of the States that the treaties in which they have decided to be a party are respected, in terms of their object and purpose, by all parties. Consequently, the Government of the Italian Republic makes an objection to this reservation. Such objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Italian Republic and the Republic of Singapore. '

A. C. DIPLOMATS AND CONSULAR.

Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies. New York, November 21, 1947. 'Official Gazette of the State' of 25 November 1974.

Lithuania. February 10, 1997. Accession in accordance with Section 43 of Article XI of the Convention, the Government of Lithuania shall apply the provisions of the Convention to the following specialised agencies:

International Labour Organization.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (second revised text of Annex II).

International Civil Aviation Organization.

United Nations Organization for Science, Culture and Education.

International Monetary Fund.

World Health Organization (third revised text of Annex II).

Universal Postal Union.

International Telecommunication Union.

World Meteorological Organization.

International Maritime Organization (revised text of Annex XII).

International Finance Corporation.

World Intellectual Property Organization.

International Fund for the Development of Agriculture.

United Nations Industrial Development Organization.

General Agreement on the Privileges of Immunities of the Council of Europe. Paris, September 2, 1949, and Additional Protocol. Strasbourg, 6 November 1952. 'Official Journal of the State' of 14 July 1982.

Ukraine. 6 November 1996. Accession.

Slovakia. 5 December 1996. Accession.

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Vienna, 18 April 1961. "Official State Gazette" of 24 January 1968.

Eritrea. 14 January 1997. Accession. Entry into force: 13 February 1997.

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Fri na, 24 April 1963. "Official State Gazette" of 6 March 1970.

Myanmar. 2 January 1997. Accession. Entry into force: 1 February 1997 with the following reservations and declarations:

" In relation to Article 35 (1) and Article 58 (1) concerning freedom of communication, the Government of the Union of Myanmar shall not grant to consular posts directed by officials of the consular fees the right to use diplomatic or consular post and diplomatic valijas and other consular offices the right to use these means to communicate with consular offices headed by consular officers fees, except to the extent that the Union of Myanmar has granted its consent in this respect concrete.

On the other hand, as regards the facilities, privileges and immunities referred to in Article 58 (2), the Government of the Union of Myanmar shall not grant exemption from the registration of foreign nationals and residence to the consular posts headed by honorary consular officers.

Statement:

In relation to Article 62, the Government of the Union of Myanmar shall not grant to consular offices headed by honorary consular officers the exemption of customs duties and taxes on articles for their use. (a) official, except to the extent that the Union of Myanmar has granted its consent in this regard in respect of the circumstances of each case. '

Eritrea. 14 January 1997. Accession, entry into force: 13 February 1997.

B. MILITARY

B. A. DEFENCE.

B. B. WAR.

Convention for the peaceful settlement of international conflicts. The Hague, October 18, 1907. "Gaceta de Madrid", June 20, 1913.

Colombia. 16 January 1997. Ratification. Entry into force: 17 March 1997.

Australia. December 23, 1996. Accession. Entry into force: 21 February 1997.

B. C. ARMS AND DISARMAMENT.

Treaty on the prohibition of the use of suffocating, toxic or similar gases and bacteriological means in the war on employment. Geneva, 17 June 1925. "Gazette of Madrid" of 14 September 1930.

France. 1 November 1996. Withdrawal of the reservations it made at the time of ratification on 9 May 1926:

" 1.o That the said Protocol does not oblige the Government of the French Republic more than the States which have signed and ratified it or which have acceded.

2.o That the said Protocol shall cease to be binding on the Government of the French Republic in relation to any enemy State whose armed forces or those of its allies do not comply with the prohibitions which are inherent to this Protocol. "

Belgium. 27 February 1997. It withdraws the reservations it made at the time of the ratification on 4 December 1928.

" 1.o That the said Protocol obliges the Belgian Government only with the States which have signed or acceded to it.

2.o That the said Protocol shall cease to be binding in full for the Belgian Government in relation to any enemy State whose armed forces or its allies do not comply with the prohibitions referred to in this Protocol. Protocol. '

Convention on Prohibitions Or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons That May Be Considered Excessively Harmful or Indiscriminated Effects (and Protocols I, II and III). Geneva, 10 October 1980. 'Official Journal of the State' of 14 April 1994.

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. 30 December 1996. Succession with regard to the Convention and its Protocols I, II and III with effect from 17 November 1991.

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. Paris, 13 January 1993. 'Official Journal of the State' of 13 December 1996.

Swaziland. November 22, 1996. Ratification. Entry into force on 29 April 1997.

Philippines. December 11, 1996. Ratification. Entry into force on 29 April 1997.

Bosnia-Herzegovina. 25 February 1997. Ratification. Entry into force on 29 April 1997.

Laos. 25 February 1997. Ratification. Entry into force on 29 April 1997.

Belgium. 27 January 1997. Ratification. Entry into force on 29 April 1997. Confirms the statement made at the time of signature.

" As a Member State of the European Community, the Government of Belgium shall apply the provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in accordance with its obligations under the rules of the Treaties. establishing the European Communities to the extent that such rules are applicable. "

B. D. HUMANITARIAN LAW.

C. CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC

C. A. CULTURAL.

European Convention on the Equivalence of Diplomas that Allow Access to University Establishments. Paris, December 11, 1953. "Official State Gazette" of 19 November 1966.

Latvia. 5 December 1996. Signature and ratification.

San Marino. May 11, 1990. Signature. 20 November 1996. Ratification.

Lithuania. 7 June 1996. Signature. 7 February 1997. Ratification. Entry into force on 7 February 1997.

European Convention on the Violence and Irruptions of Spectators with the Motive of Sports Manifestations and Especially of Football Parties. Strasbourg, 19 August 1985. "Official State Gazette" of 13 August 1987.

Bulgaria. 16 October 1996. Ratification. Entry into force on 1 December 1996.

Convention for the Safeguarding of the Architectural Heritage of Europe. Granada, 3 October 1985. 'Official Journal of the State' of 30 June 1989.

Estonia. 15 November 1996. Ratification. Entry into force on 1 March 1997.

Ireland. 20 January 1997. Ratification. Entry into force on 1 May 1997 with the following reservation:

" In accordance with Article 25 Ireland states that it reserves the right not to comply with the provisions of Article 4 (2c) of the Convention.

Latin American Film Coproduction Agreement. Caracas, 11 November 1989. 'Official Journal of the State' of 2 December 1992.

Brazil. March 11, 1997. Ratification. Entry into force on 11 April 1997.

European Convention on Film Coproduction. Strasbourg, 2 October 1992. 'Official Journal of the State' of 21 November 1996.

Portugal. December 13, 1996. Ratification. Entry into force on 1 April 1997 with the following reservation and declaration:

" In accordance with Article 20 (1) of the Convention, the maximum contribution provided for in Article 9 (1) (a) has been fixed at 30 per 100.

In relation to Article 5 (5) of the Convention, the "Institut Portugais de l' Art Cinematographique et Audiovisuel (IPACA)" is designated as the national competent authority to assess applications for admission to the coproduction. "

Hungary. 24 October 1996. Signature without reservation of ratification, entry into force on 1 February 1997 with the following declaration:

"In accordance with Article 5 of Chapter II of the Convention, the Ministry of Culture and Education is designated as the competent authority referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 5."

Italy. 22 October 1993. Signature. 14 February 1997. Ratification. Entry into force on 1 June 1997 with the following statement:

"In accordance with Article 5 (5) of the Convention, Italy declares that the competent authority is the" Presidenza del Consiglio "-Dialdello dello Spettacolo-Rome."

C. B. SCIENTISTS.

C. C. INDUSTRIAL AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

Exchange of Letters, dated 7 February 1996 and 4 March 1996, establishing an Agreement between Spain and Unesco on the Colloquium on the Effects of the Electronic Multimedia Communication (Autopetracks de la Información) en Subject of Protection of Copyright and other Rights and its Consequences in Economic and Cultural Development (Madrid, 11-14 March 1996).

The Exchange of Letters, dated February 7, 1996 and March 4, 1996, establishing an Agreement between Spain and UNESCO on the Colloquium on the Effects of Multimedia Electronic Communication (Autotracks of Information) in Materia de Protección de Derechos de Autor y otros Titulares de Derechos y sus Consequences en el Desarrollo Económico y Cultural (Madrid, 11-14 March 1996), the provisional application of which was published in the Official Gazette of the State 151, dated 22 June 1996, entered into force on 22 January 1997, as set out in its texts, date of the notification of Spain to UNESCO communicating the fulfilment of all constitutional requirements for the conclusion of international treaties.

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. 9 September 1886 (revised in Paris on 24 July 1971 and amended on 28 September 1979). G. Madrid, March 18, 1888. 'Official Journal of the State' of 4 April 1974 and 30 October 1974.

Bahrain. November 29, 1996. Accession. It entered into force on 2 March 1997 and declares that it will invoke the benefit of the power provided for in Article II and that provided for in Article III of the Annex to that Convention.

Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Products and Services for the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957 and revised in Stockholm on 14 July 1967. 'Official Journal of the State' of 15 March 1979.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea. 6 March 1997. Accession. Entry into force on 6 June 1997.

Madrid Agreement concerning the International Registration of Marks of 14 April 1891, revised in Stockholm on 14 July 1967 and amended on 28 September 1979. 'Official Journal of the State' of 20 June 1979.

Poland. 4 December 1996. Withdrawal of the declaration made pursuant to Article 14 (2) (d) and (f) of the Madrid Agreement concerning the International Registration of Marks of 14 April 1891, to the effect of limiting the application of this Agreement to trade marks registered with from the date of entry into force of the accession of the Republic of Poland.

Sierra Leone. March 17, 1997. Accession. Entry into force on 17 June 1997.

Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization. Stockholm, 14 July 1967 and amended on 28 September 1979. "Official State Gazette" of 30 January 1974.

Oman. November 19, 1996. Accession. Entry into force on 19 February 1997.

Eritrea. 20 November 1996. Accession. Entry into force on 20 February 1997.

Locarno Arrangement that Sets an International Classification of Industrial Designs. Locarno, October 8, 1968. "Official State Gazette" of 16 November 1973.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea. 6 March 1997. Accession. Entry into force on 6 June 1997.

Strasbourg Agreement on the International Classification of Patents. Strasbourg, 24 March 1971, as amended on 28 September 1979. "Official State Gazette" of 1 January 1976.

Poland. 4 December 1996. Accession. Entry into force on 4 December 1997.

Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957. Revised in Stockholm on 14 July 1967 and in Geneva on 13 May 1977 and amended on 28 September 1979. 'Official Journal of the State' of 16 March 1979.

Poland. 4 December 1996. Accession. Entry into force on 4 March 1997.

Lithuania. November 22, 1996. Accession. Entry into force on 22 February 1997.

Protocol Concerning the Madrid Agreement concerning the International Registration of Marks, adopted in Madrid on 27 June 1989. 'Official Journal of the State' of 18 November 1995.

Poland. 4 December 1996. Accession. Entry into force on 4 March 1997.

Portugal. 20 December 1996. Ratification. Entry into force on 20 March 1997.

Russian Federation. March 10, 1997. Ratification. Entry into force on 1 May 1997.

Switzerland. 1 February 1997. Ratification. Entry into force on 1 May 1997 with the following declarations:

" In accordance with Article 5.2 (d) of the Madrid Protocol (1989), the Government of the Swiss Confederation declares that, in accordance with Article 5.2 (b) of the said Protocol, the period of one year provided for in Article 5.2 (2) (a) the Protocol for the exercise of the right to notify the refusal of protection is replaced by a period of 18 months;

In accordance with Article 8.7 (a) of the Madrid Protocol (1989), that Government declares that, in respect of each international registration in which it is referred to pursuant to Article 3b of the said Protocol, the renewal of such an international registration, it wishes to receive, instead of a part of the income from the additional fees and the add-ons of fees, an individual fee. "

Iceland. 15 January 1997. Accession. Entry into force on 15 April 1997 with the following declarations:

" In accordance with Article 5.2 (d) of the Madrid Protocol (1989), the Government of the Republic of Iceland declares that, in accordance with Article 5.2 (b) of the said Protocol, the period of one year provided for in Article 5.2 (a) the Protocol for the exercise of the right to notify the refusal of protection is replaced by a period of 18 months;

In accordance with Article 8.7 (a) of the Madrid Protocol (1989), the Government declares that, in respect of each international registration in which it is referred to under Article 3ter of that Protocol, and in respect of the renewal of such an international registration, it wishes to receive, instead of a portion of the income from the additional fees and the rate supplements, an individual fee. "

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), drawn up in Washington on 19 June 1970, amended on 2 October 1970 and amended on 3 February 1984. And its Implementing Regulation. 'Official Journal of the State' of 7 November 1989.

Ghana. November 26, 1996. Accession. Entry into force on 26 February 1997.

Zimbabwe. March 11, 1997. Accession. Entry into force on 11 June 1997.

Slovenia. 20 December 1996. Letter concerning the accession of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 1 November 1996 to the Treaty.

" Very Mr. mine:

I have the honour to refer to the PCT notification number 115 dated November 4, 1996, concerning the deposit of an instrument of ratification of the Treaty of Cooperation in the Matter of Patents by the Government of the Republic Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the publication of WIPO of 1 April 1996, entitled " States Parties to the Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization or other administrative treaties by WIPO or in the International Convention for the Protection of Plant Varieties ".

would like to draw your attention to Article 62 of the Treaty, which states that any Member State of the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property (Union of Paris) may be a party to that Treaty. Treaty ratifying or adhering to it. In my government's view, this essential condition, as set out in Article 62, has not been fulfilled in the case of the deposit of the instrument of ratification of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In its publication of 1 April 1996, a country called Yugoslavia is on the list of members of WIPO, the Union of Paris and the Union of Bern. However, the data provided in that publication (the date on which the State acquired the status of a member) refer to the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and not to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), which was established in April 1992.

In this context, I would also like to draw your attention to the relevant resolutions of the Security Council (757, 777) and the General Assembly (47/ 1), all of which were adopted in 1992, in which the known State Previously, with the name of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia it has ceased to exist and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) cannot automatically guarantee the continuity of the membership of the former Yugoslavia. Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

in addition, the arbitration panel of the UN-EEC Conference on the former Yugoslavia concluded that none of the successor states could claim exclusive rights attached to the status of a member of the The former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (opinion number 9) and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) is a new state which cannot be regarded as the only successor to the Republic of Yugoslavia. Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

i would like to stress that my government is absolutely not opposed to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia becoming a member of WIPO, the Union of Paris, the Union of Bern and any other union established by a treaty. administered by WIPO. However, it shall only be recognized as a member when it has duly notified one or more declarations of continuation of the application, within its territory, of the Paris and Berne conventions or of other agreements in which the The former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as other successor states of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have done. The Government of the Republic of Slovenia is not aware that the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has made such notification. However, if the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had notified WIPO of its succession, we would be grateful if it communicated it to us.

In this regard, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in the publication of the WIPO mentioned above, no distinction is made between the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia, which seems to us to be worrying. For the Government of the Republic of Slovenia, there is no doubt that WIPO must be precise in the words of the Member States of the Organization. It also hopes that the necessary distinction will be made between, on the one hand, the ratification of a treaty by the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and, on the other, the eventual membership of the Republic of Yugoslavia. Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as one of the successor states of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, by way of accession or ratification.

My government asks you to inform you of the basis on which the deposit of the instrument of ratification of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been accepted. I would also be grateful if you duly indicated on the list of members of the World Intellectual Property Organization and on the list of the Parties whose instruments WIPO would deposit the fact that the Federative Republic Socialist Yugoslavia has ceased to exist.

I would be grateful if you would inform all members of the World Intellectual Property Organization of the contents of this letter.

Receive, Mr. Director-General, the testimony of my highest consideration.

Permanent Representative to WIPO, Bojan Pretnar. "

January 17, 1997. Joint letter from Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Slovenia concerning the accession of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 1 November 1996 to the Treaty.

" Excmo. Mr Bogsch:

In accordance with the instructions received from our governments, we have the honour to present to you, as a depositary of multilateral treaties, the position of our governments in relation to the ratification of the Treaty on Patent Cooperation (PCT) by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 1 November 1996, communicated in its notification number 115.

Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Macedonia and the Republic of Slovenia express their objection to the ratification of the PCT by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. As a new State, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is not a party to the Paris Convention, since it has not notified its succession in the Convention as all the other successor States of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have done, nor has it acceded to the Paris Convention otherwise, so it cannot be considered a member of the Paris Union.

Article 62 of the PCT provides that "any Member State of the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property may be a Party to this Treaty", meaning that the Treaty is open exclusively to the States Parties to the Paris Convention. The acceptance of the instrument of ratification by the depositary could therefore be interpreted as the recognition of the automatic succession of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in respect of the Paris Convention, which would be Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the governing bodies of WIPO, the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the opinions issued by the Badinter Commission and the rules of law The International Convention on the Succession of States of the European Union.

Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Macedonia and the Republic of Slovenia consider that the conditions prior to the ratification of the PCT by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are not fulfilled and that the ratification is null and void. They request the Director-General of the World Intellectual Property Organization to inform all States Parties of the restrictions mentioned above. The signatories would like to be informed of the measures taken by the Director-General. "

C. D. VARERS.

D. SALES

D. A. HEALTH.

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. New York, 30 March 1961. "Official State Gazette" of 22 April 1966, 26 April and 8 November 1967 and 27 February 1975.

Sao Tome and Principe. June 20, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 20 July 1996.

Amendments to Articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the World Health Organization adopted at the XX Assembly of 23 May 1967. 'Official Journal of the State' of 10 November 1975.

Andorra. 15 January 1997. Acceptance.

Convention on Psychotropic Substances. Vienna, 21 February 1971. "Official State Gazette" of 10 September 1976.

Indonesia. December 19, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 19 March 1997, with the following reservation:

" The Republic of Indonesia, while adhering to the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, is not considered bound by the provisions of Article 31 (2) and considers that disputes relating to the interpretation and application of the Convention which have not been resolved by the conduit provided for in paragraph 1 of that Article may only be submitted to the International Court of Justice with the consent of all the parties in the controversy. "

Constitution of the World Health Organization. Amendments to Articles 34 and 55. Geneva, 22 May 1973. 'Official Journal of the State' of 18 March 1977.

Andorra. 15 January 1997. Acceptance.

Agreement on the Transfer of Dead Bodies. Strasbourg, 26 October 1973. "Official State Gazette" of 3 May 1972.

Latvia. 5 December 1996. Signature and ratification, entry into force on 6 January 1997.

Single Convention of 1961 on Narcotic Drugs, as amended by the Protocol of Amendment of the Single Convention of 1961 on Narcotic Drugs. New York, 8 August 1975. 'Official Journal of the State' of 4 November 1981.

Sao Tome and Principe. June 20, 1996. Participation.

Constitution of the World Health Organization. Amendments to Articles 24 and 25. Geneva, 17 May 1976. 'Official Journal of the State' of 26 April 1984.

Andorra. 15 January 1997. Acceptance.

Amendments to Articles 24 and 25 of the World Health Organization (WHO) Constitution adopted at the 39th World Health Assembly on May 12, 1986. 'Official Journal of the State' of 14 December 1994.

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. July 22, 1996. Acceptance.

Andorra. 15 January 1997. Acceptance.

United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Vienna, 20 December 1988. 'Official Journal of the State' of 10 November 1990.

Cuba. June 12, 1996. Ratification, entry into force on 10 September 1996, with the following statement:

" The Government of the Republic of Cuba declares that it is not considered bound by the provisions contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 32, and that disputes arising between the Parties must be resolved by means of negotiation through diplomatic channels. "

Malta. 6 November 1996. In accordance with Article 7 (8) and 17 (7), the Government of Malta designates the following authority:

"Attorney General".

In accordance with Article 7 (9), you designate English as a language.

Hungary. 15 November 1996. Ratification, entry into force on 13 February 1997.

Belize. July 24, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 22 October 1996 with the following reservation:

" Article 8 of the Convention requires Parties to consider the possibility of referral to criminal proceedings for the prosecution of certain offences where such a referral is deemed to be in the interest of a correct administration of justice.

Belize courts have no extraterritorial jurisdiction, so they will not be competent to pursue crimes committed abroad unless such crimes are committed, in part, within their jurisdiction and in part of it, by a person within its jurisdiction. In addition, under the Belize Constitution, the control of public actions is attributed to the Director of Public Works, which is an independent official not subject to government control.

Therefore, Belize may only apply Article 8 of the Convention to the extent that it is permitted by its Constitution and its legislation. "

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. August 6, 1996. Communication.

" ... the aforementioned Convention applies to Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Monserrat and Turks and Caicos Islands.

... I have the honour to confirm that, in relation to the said territories, the granting of immunity under Article 7 (18) of the said Convention will only be raised upon request. specifically the person to whom the immunity or authorities designated in accordance with Article 7 (8) of the Party to which assistance is requested would apply. An application for immunity shall not be granted where the judicial authorities of the territory concerned consider that doing so would be contrary to the public interest. '

Also, the United Kingdom Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland notified on the same date their designation of authorities for the purposes of Articles 7 (8) and 17 (7) in relation to each of the above territories:

" Anguilla

Item 7 (8):

The Attorney General. Attorney General's Chambers. The Secretariat. The Valley. Anguilla.

Tel.: (809) 497 3044. Fax: (809) 497 3126.

Item 17 (7):

The Governor's Office. Government House. Anguilla.

Tel.: (809) 497 2621. Fax: (809) 497 3151.

Bermuda

Item 7 (8):

Attorney General's Chambers. Global House. 43 Church Street. Hamilton HM 12, Bermuda.

Tel.: 441-292-2463. Fax: 441-292-3608.

Item 17 (7):

Deputy Governor's Office. Government House. 11 Langton Hill. Pembroke HM 13, Bermuda.

Tel.: 441-292-3600. Fax: 441-295-3823.

British Virgin Islands

Item 7 (8):

The Attorney General. The Attorney General's Chambers. Government of the Virgin Islands. PO Box 242. Road Town. Tortola. Virgin Islands.

Tel.: (809) 494 3701. Fax: (809) 494 6760.

Item 17 (7):

The Governor. Office of the Governor. PO Box 702. Tortola. British Virgin Islands.

Tel.: (809) 494 2345. Fax: (809) 494 5582.

Cayman Islands

Item 7 (8):

The Attorney General. Attorney General's Chambers. Government Administration Building. Grand Cayman. Cayman Islands.

Tel.: (809) 949 7900. Fax: (809) 949 6079.

Item 17 (7):

The Attorney General.

Monserrat

Item 7 (8):

The Attorney General. Attorney General's Chambers. Government Headquaters. PO Box 129. Plymouth. Monserrat. Tel. (809) 491 2444. Fax: (809) 491 5057.

Item 17 (7):

Controller of Customs. Customs and Excise Department. PO Box 431. Plymouth. Monserrat.

Tel.: (809) 491 2452. Fax: (809) 491 7624.

Turkish and Caicos Islands

Item 7 (8):

The Governor. Government House. Turkish and Caicos Islands.

Tel.: (809) 946 2308. Fax: (809) 946 2903.

Item 17 (7):

The Governor.

The language to be accepted for the purposes of Article 7 (9) in relation to each of these territories is English. "

Jamaica. 10 December 1996. It withdraws the statement it made at the time of the ratification.

" The Government of Jamaica understands that Article 17 (11) of the aforementioned Convention means that the consent of the coastal State is required as a requirement for action under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention. Article 17 of the said Convention in relation to the Exclusive Economic Zone and all other maritime areas under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the coastal State. "

Anti-Doping Convention. Strasbourg, 16 November 1989. 'Official Journal of the State' of 11 June 1992.

Latvia. 23 January 1997. Signature and ratification, entry into force on 1 March 1997.

D. B. HUMAN TRAFFICKING.

International Convention against the Taking of Rehrenes. New York, 17 December 1979. 'Official Journal of the State' of 7 July 1984.

Algeria. December 18, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 17 January 1997, with the following reservation:

The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria is not considered bound by the provisions of Article 16 (1) of the International Convention against the Taking of Rehrenes, adopted by the General Assembly of the The United Nations on 17 December 1979.

These provisions are not in accordance with the opinion of the Government of the Democratic and People's Republic of Algeria that the submission of a dispute to the International Court of Justice requires the prior consent of all parties involved in each case.

D. C. TURISMO.

D. D. ENVIRONMENT.

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Habitat of Aquatic Birds. Ramsar, February 2, 1971. "Official State Gazette" of 20 August 1982.

Israel. November 12, 1996. Ratification, entry into force on 12 March 1997.

" In accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, Israel designates the following Wetlands to be included in the list of Wetlands of International Importance:

Afeq Nature Reserve.

Hula Nature Reserve (original in Afeq Nature Reserve and Hula Nature Reserve). "

Malawi. November 14, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 14 March 1997.

" In accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, Malawi designates the following on the list of Wetlands of International Importance:

Lake Chilwa (original Lake Chilwa). "

Gambia. 16 September 1996. Ratification, entry into force on 16 January 1997.

" In accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, The Gambia designates the following in the list of Wetlands of International Importance:

Bao Bolong Humedal Reserve (original Bao Bolong Wetland Reserve). "

Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Transboundary Air Pollution at Great Distance, on the Long-term Financing of the Concerted Programme for Continuous Monitoring and Evaluation of Transport at Great Distance Air pollutants in Europe (EMEP). Geneva, 28 September 1984. 'Official Journal of the State' of 18 February 1988.

Latvia. February 18, 1997. Accession, entry into force on 19 May 1997.

Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. Vienna, 22 March 1985. 'Official Journal of the State' of 16 November 1988.

Estonia. 17 October 1996. Accession, entry into force on 15 January 1997.

Moldova. 24 October 1996. Accession, entry into force on 22 January 1997.

Madagascar. 7 November 1996. Accession, entry into force on 5 February 1997.

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. 2 December 1996. Accession, entry into force on 2 March 1997.

Burundi. 6 January 1997. Accession, entry into force on 6 April 1997.

Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the Ozone Layer. Montreal, 16 September 1987. 'Official Journal of the State' of 17 March 1989.

Madagascar. 7 November 1996. Accession, entry into force on 5 February 1997.

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. 2 December 1996. Accession, entry into force on 2 March 1997.

Burundi. 6 January 1997. Accession, entry into force on 6 April 1997.

Denmark. 12 February 1997. The Government of Denmark notifies that the reservation of the application of this Protocol to the Faroe Islands has been lifted.

Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Elimination. Basel, 22 March 1989. 'Official Journal of the State' of 22 September 1994.

Nepal. 15 October 1996. Accession, entry into force on 13 January 1997.

Bolivia. 15 November 1996. Accession, entry into force on 13 February 1997.

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. 2 December 1996. Accession, entry into force on 2 March 1997.

Burundi. 6 January 1997. Accession, entry into force on 6 April 1997.

Colombia. 31 December 1996. Ratification, entry into force on 31 March 1997. With the following statement:

"That for the purposes of applying this International Instrument, Article 81 of the Constitution of the Republic prohibits the introduction into the national territory of nuclear waste and toxic waste."

Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the Ozone Layer (published in the Official Gazette of 17 March 1989), adopted in London on 29 June 1990. 'Official Journal of the State' of 14 July 1992.

Czech Republic. December 18, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 18 March 1997.

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. 2 December 1996. Accession, entry into force on 2 March 1997.

Ukraine. February 6, 1997. Ratification, entry into force on 7 May 1997.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. New York, 9 May 1992. Official Gazette of the State of 1 February 1994.

Swaziland. 7 October 1996. Ratification, entry into force on 5 January 1997.

Congo. 14 October 1996. Ratification, entry into force on 12 January 1997.

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. 2 December 1996. Accession, entry into force on 2 March 1997.

Burundi. 6 January 1997. Accession, entry into force on 6 April 1997.

Convention on Biological Diversity. Rio de Janeiro, 5 June 1992. Official Gazette of the State of 1 February 1994.

Croatia. 7 October 1996. Ratification, entry into force on 7 January 1997.

Belgium. November 22, 1996. Ratification, entry into force on 20 February 1997.

Dominican Republic. November 25, 1996. Ratification, entry into force on 23 February 1997.

Turkey. February 24, 1997. Ratification, entry into force on 15 May 1997.

Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the Ozone Layer (published in the "Official State Gazette" of 17 March, 15 November and 28 February 1990), adopted at the Fourth Meeting of the Parties of the Montreal Protocol, held in Copenhagen from 23 to 25 November 1992. 'Official Journal of the State' of 15 September 1995.

Liechtenstein. November 22, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 20 February 1997.

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. 2 December 1996. Accession, entry into force on 2 March 1997.

Czech Republic. December 18, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 18 March 1997.

Croatia. February 11, 1997. Ratification, entry into force on 12 May 1997.

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Affected by Severe Drought Or Desertification in Particular in Africa. Paris, 17 June 1994. 'Official Journal of the State' of 11 February 1997.

Morocco. 7 November 1996. Ratification, entry into force on 5 February 1997.

India. 17 December 1996. Ratification, entry into force on 17 March 1997.

Ghana. December 27, 1996. Ratification, entry into force on 27 March 1997.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. December 24, 1996. Notification by which the effects of the Convention will be extended to Montserrat for whose international relations the Government of the United Kingdom is responsible.

Algeria. May 22, 1996. Ratification with the following statements:

" The People's Democratic Republic of Algeria is not considered bound by Article 28 (2) of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Drought-Affected Countries serious or desertification, in particular in Africa, which provides for the mandatory submission of any dispute to the International Court of Justice.

The People's Democratic Republic of Algeria declares that in order for a dispute to be submitted to the International Court of Justice, it will be necessary, in each case, for the agreement of all the Parties involved. "

Myanmar. 2 January 1997. Accession, entry into force on 2 April 1997.

Argentina. 6 January 1997. Ratification, entry into force on 6 April 1997.

Burundi. 6 January 1997. Ratification, entry into force on 6 April 1997.

Yemen. 14 January 1997. Accession, entry into force on 14 April 1997.

Paraguay. 15 January 1997. Ratification, entry into force on 15 April 1997.

China. February 18, 1997. Ratification, entry into force on 19 May 1997.

Luxembourg. 4 February 1997. Ratification, entry into force on 5 May 1997.

D. E. SALES.

E. LEGAL

E. A. DISPUTE SETTLEMENT.

E. B. PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL RIGHT.

the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties. Vienna, 23 May 1969. 'Official Journal of the State' of 13 June 1980.

Costa Rica. November 22, 1996. Ratification, entry into force on 22 December 1996, with the following reservations and declarations:

" 1. In relation to Articles 11 and 12, the Costa Rican delegation makes the reservation that the constitutional legal system of that country does not authorize any form of consent that is not subject to ratification by the Legislative Assembly.

2. As regards Article 25, it makes the reservation that the political Constitution of that country also does not admit the provisional entry into force of the treaties.

3. As for Article 27, it interprets the secondary law, not the provisions of the Political Constitution.

4. In relation to Article 38, it is interpreted that a customary standard of general international law shall not, in any way, deprive the inter-American system of which it considers to be a substitute for this Convention. "

E. C. PRIVATE CIVIL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Convention on Civil Procedure. The Hague, March 1, 1954. "Official State Gazette" of 13 December 1961.

Armenia. May 6, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 29 January 1997.

Convention on the Obtaining of Food Abroad. New York, June 20, 1956. "Official State Gazette" of 24 November 1966, 16 November 1971.

Estonia. 8 January 1997. Accession, entry into force on 7 February 1997.

In accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, the Government of Estonia notifies that the Ministry of Justice in Estonia has been designated as the Agency both Transmisora and Receptor.

Belarus. November 14, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 14 December 1996.

In a note accompanying the instrument, the Government of Belarus notified the Secretary-General, in accordance with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the authorities designated as the sending authority and institution the intermediary and the documents which the sending authorities of the States Parties are obliged to present.

The text of the above note is as follows:

In accordance with the provisions of Article 2 (3) of the Convention on the Obtaining of Food Abroad, adopted under the auspices of the United Nations on 20 June 1956, we have the honour of to inform you that in the Republic of Belarus the referring authority is the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Belarus and the intermediary institutions are the (municipal) district courts of the Republic.

In accordance with Article 3 (2) we have the honour to inform you that, in order to obtain food on the territory of the Republic of Belarus, the sending authorities of the States Parties to the Convention are required to present the following documents:

1. Application by the complainant for recognition and enforcement of the judgment.

2. The judgment or a certified copy thereof and the official document relating to the determination of the judgment.

3. The document proving that the party against which the judgment was delivered and which did not intervene in the court proceedings was duly notified or represented.

4. The document confirming the partial implementation of the resolutions at the time of their referral.

Models of the above-mentioned documents are attached to the present.

We also wish to inform you that the documents mentioned must be sent by the sending authorities of the States Parties to the regional courts and the Minsk Municipal Court according to the place of residence of the respondent:

1. Brest Regional Court. 224000, Brest, ul. Sovteskikh pogranichnikov, 41.

2. Regional Court of Vitebsk. 210015, Vitebsk, ul. Shubina, 4.

3. Regional Court of Gomel. 246000, Gomel, ul. Sovetskaya, 20.

4. Regional Court of Grodno. 230023, Grodno, ul. Karbysheva, 20.

5. Mogilev Regional Court. 21203, Mogilev, ul. Pervomaiskaya, 28a.

6. Regional Court of Minsk. 220030, Minsk, ul. Lenina, 28.

7. Minsk Municipal Court. 220092, Minsk, ul. Mr Martinkevicha, 1.

Directorate of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Belarus:

220084, Minsk, ul. Kollektornaya, 10. Tel/fax: 20 97 55. Tel.: 20 83 81.

CERTIFICATE

Resolution, (name of Court)

of the claim filed by (date of resolution)

(last name, name, pattern, or nickname

of the claimant)

against (last name, name and patronymic or nickname

of the respondent)

by (resolution object)

which acquired firmness

the and whose execution corresponds to (firmness date)

(name of the Court) (surname, name, patronimical

and Judge's signature)

Court seal

CERTIFICATE

Resolution, (name of Court)

of the claim filed by (date of resolution)

(last name, name, pattern, or nickname

of the claimant)

against (last name, name and patronymic or nickname

of the respondent)

by (resolution object)

was (was not) executed in the territory of the Republic of Belarus

(name of the Court) (surname, name, patronimical

and Judge's signature)

Court seal

To the competent court

from (Status)

of the citizen (last name, name, patronymic)

with domicile at (full address of the claimant)

REQUEST

Please authorize the execution and run on the

territory

the resolution

(Status) (name of Court)

about the get (resolution date) (resolution content)

to my behalf of the citizen (surname, name and employer of the debtor)

Debtor's domicile I am informed of the decision taken and the amount claimed is transferred to:

(full address of the claimant or account number to be transferred to the amount)

Signature Date (last name and initials in parentheses)

Sweden. 4 December 1996. Notification in accordance with Article 2 (3) of the Convention, the Government of Sweden designates the following authority as both a transmitting and receiving Agency.

Forsakringskassan Stockholms lan Utlandskontoret (The Social Insurance Office in Stockholm, Foreign Division). Klara v. Kyrkogata, 11. S-105 11 Stockholm.

Convention Suppressing The Requirement of Legalization of Foreign Public Documents. The Hague, 5 October 1961. 'Official Journal of the State' of 25 September 1978, 17 October 1978, 19 January 1979 and 20 September 1984.

Andorra. April 15, 1996. In accordance with Article 12, paragraph 3, the Convention shall enter into force between Andorra and the Contracting States on 31 December 1996.

In accordance with Article 6 (1) of the Convention, the Government of Andorra designates the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Andorra as the competent authority to issue the apostille provided for in Article 3 (1) of the Convention. Convention.

El Salvador. 11 December 1996. In accordance with Article 6, paragraph 1, the Government of the Savior designates the following authority:

1. Director-General of the Foreign Service.

2. Head of Coordination and Management of the Foreign Service.

Finland. 1 December 1996. In accordance with Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Convention, Finland amends the competent authorities:

Register Office of Espoo/Register Office of Helsinki

Itatuulenti 2 A/Albertinkatu 25

P. B. 49/P.B. 309

02101 ESPOO/00181 HELSINKI

Tel. (09) 502 4270/Tel. (09) 695 441

Telefax (09) 5024 2770/Telefax (09) 6954 4330

Register Office of Hyvinkaa

Urakankatu 1

P. B. 70

05901 HYVINKAA

Tel. (019) 458 11

Telefax (019) 458 1619/Register Office of Lohja

Postikatu 3

P. B. 37.

08101 LOHJA

Tel. (019) 322 505

Telefax (019) 322 153

Register Office of Porvoo

Tulliportinkatu 1

06100 PORVOO

Tel. (019) 548 611

Telefax (019) 583 781/Register Office of Raseborg

Formansallen 2.

P. B. 49

10601 EKENAS

Tel. (019) 241 6445

Telefax (019) 241 6449

Register Office of Vantaa

Neilikkatie 8

P. B. 112

01301 VANTAA

Tel. (09) 836 2480

Telefax (09) 8362 4850/Register Office of Pori

Isolinnankatu 28

PL 191

29101 PORI

Tel. (02) 622 7310

Telefax (02) 622 7307

Register Office of Rauma

Aittakarinkatu 21

P. B. 30

26101 RAUMA

Tel. (02) 831 921

Telefax (02) 8319 5270/Register Office of Salo

Rummunlyojankatu 7 B

P. B. 40

24101 SALO

Tel. (02) 775 151

Telefax (02) 775 1597

Register Office of Turku

Eerikinkatu 40-42

P. B. 372

20101 TURKU

Tel. (02) 281 511

Telefax (02) 281 5037/Register Office of Aboland

Strandkvagen 30

P. B. 16

21601 PARGAS

Tel. (02) 458 1800

Telefax (02) 458 1803

Register Office

of Vakka-Suomi

Valskarintie 2

P. B. 6

23501 UUSIKAUPUNKI

Tel. (02) 842 2330

Telefax (02) 842 2336/Register Office of Åland

Torggatan 16

P. B. 29

22101 MARIEHAMN

Tel. (018) 63 50

Telefax (018) 23750

Register Office

of Hameenlinna

Birger Jaarlin katu 13

P. B. 64

13101 HAMEENLINNA

Tel. (03) 62 221

Telefax (03) 622 2314/Register Office of Lahti

Salininkatu 3

15100 LAHTI

Tel. (03) 734 1602

Telefax (03) 734 1603

Register Office of Tampere

Verkatenhtaankatu 14 A

P. B. 682

33101 TAMPERE

Tel. (03) 253 9011

Telefax (03) 253 9015/Register Office of Kotka

Vuorikatu 5 C

48100 KOTKA

Tel. (05) 219 9599

Telefax (05) 219 9593

Register Office of Kouvola

Kauppalankatu 14

P. B. 99

45101 KOUVOLA

Tel. (05) 7751

Telefax (05) 375 1144/Register Office

of Lapperoots

Pormestarinkatu 1 A

P. B. 149

53101 LAPPEENRANTA

Tel. (05) 415 6751

Telefax (05) 415 6697

Register Office of Mikkeli

Raatihuoneenkatu 5 B

P. B. 293

50101 MIKKELI

Tel. (015) 1911

Telefax (015) 191 2610/Register Office of

Savonlinna

Olavinkatu 24

P. Box 45

57131 SAVONLINNA

Tel. (015) 578 0280

Telefax (015) 578 0281

Register Office of Kuopio

Suokatu 44 A

70110 KUOPIO

Tel. (017) 246 364

Telefax (017) 246 379/Register Office of Yla-Savo

Riistakatu 2B

74100 IISALMI

Tel. (017) 83 911

Telefax (017) 839 1395

Register Office of Joensuu

Kauppakatu 40 B

P. B. 82

80101 JOENSUU

Tel. (013) 1411

Telefax (013) 141 2605/Register Office of

pielisen-Karjala

Kirkkotie 3

P. B. 10

83901 JUUKA

Tel. (013) 472 075

Telefax (013) 472 077

Register Office of Kokkola

Torikatu 40

67100 KOKKOLA

Tel. (06) 827 9111

Telefax (06) 827 9711/Register Office of Seinajoki

Kalenvankatu 17

P. B. 168

60101 SEINAJOKI

Tel. (06) 423 1900

Telefax (06) 423 1906

Register Office of Vasa

Skolhusgatan 2

P. B. 208

65101 VASA

Tel. (06) 323 6111

Telefax (06) 317 3603/Register Office of Jyvaskyla

Vainonkatu 7

P. B. 253

40101 JYVASKYLA

Tel. (014) 298 355

Telefax (014) 298 356

Register Office of Jamsa

Virkatie 3

P. B. 77

42101 JAMSA

Tel. (014) 712 411

Telefax (014) 712 017/Register Office of Saarijarvi

Sivulantie 11

P. B. 47

43101 SAARIJARVI

Tel. (014) 417 230

Telefax (014) 417 236

Register Office of Kajaani

Kalliokatu 4

P. B. 221

87101 KAJAANI

Tel. (08) 61 631

Telefax (08) 616 3795/Register Office of Oulu

Rata-aukio 2

P. B. 78

90101 OULU

Tel. (08) 313 7111

Telefax (08) 313 7768

Register Office of Raahe

Rantakatu 58 A

P. B. 16

92101 RAAHE

Tel. (08) 29 931

Telefax (08) 299 3280/Register Office of Kemi

Valtakatu 28

9100 KEMI

Tel. (016) 2941

Telefax (016) 294 332

Register Office of Lappi

Valtion Viastotalo

99100 KITTILA

Tel. (016) 643 500

Telefax (016) 644 411/Register Office of Rovaniemi

Rovakatu 8

P. B. 8183

96101 ROVANIEMI

Tel. (016) 329 4111

Telefax (016) 329 4999

Convention on Consent for Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Same, New York, December 10, 1962. "Official State Gazette" of 29 May 1969.

Kyrgyzstan. February 10, 1997. Accession. Entry into force on 11 May 1997.

Convention on the Notification or Transfer of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. The Hague, 15 November 1965. 'Official Journal of the State' of 25 August 1987 and 13 April 1989.

China. March 18, 1997. Modification of the address of the designated authority:

Bureau of International Judicial Assistance.

Ministry of Justice.

10, Chaoyangmen Nandajie, Chaoyang District, Beijing.

P. C. 100020.

People's Republic of China.

Estonia. 2 April 1997. In accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, Estonia designates the following Central Authority:

Estonian Ministry of Justice.

European Convention in the Field of Information on Foreign European Law. London, 7 June 1968. "Official State Gazette" of 7 October 1974.

Lithuania. April 14, 1994. Signature. 16 October 1996. Ratification. Entry into force on 17 January 1997, with the following statement:

" The Republic of Lithuania declares that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the Convention, the Republic of Lithuania is the Republic of Lithuania (Gedino av. 30/1, Vilnius 2600, Lithuania, tel. (370 2) 62 46 70, fax (370 2) 62 59 40 is to be considered both as a body for receipt and for the transmission of information requests. "

Slovakia. November 3, 1995. Signature. 5 December 1996. Ratification. Entry into force on 6 March 1997 with the following statement:

" In accordance with the provisions of Article 2 (1) and (2) of the Convention, the Slovak Republic designates both the receiving and the transmission organ of the Justice of the Slovak Republic:

Ministerstvo spravodlivosti.

Slovenskkej republiky.

Sekcia medzinarodneho prava.

Zupne namestie 13.

813 11 Bratislava. "

Additional Protoloco to the European Convention on Foreign Law Information. Strasbourg, 15 March 1978. 'Official Journal of the State' of 24 June 1982.

Slovakia. 5 December 1996. Ratification. Entry into force on 6 March 1997.

" In accordance with Article 5 (1) of the Additional Protocol, the Slovak Republic declares that it shall be bound by Chapter I of that Protocol only.

For the transmission of claims under Chapter I as a Transmitting Agency pursuant to Article 2 (2) of the Convention, in addition to the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic, the Bureau du Procureur General:

Genralna prokuratura.

Slovenskkej republiky.

Zupne namestie 13.

813 11 Bratislava. "

European Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions on the Custody of Minors, as well as on the establishment of the Custody. Luxembourg, 20 May 1980. 'Official Journal of the State' of 1 September 1984.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. November 18, 1996. Statement:

" In accordance with Article 24, paragraph 2, the United Kingdom Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland declares that the Convention will be extended to the Falkland Islands, with entry into force on 1 March 1997.

In accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland designates the following authority for the Falkland Islands:

The Governor, Government House, Santley, Falkland Island. "

Germany. 5 October 1990. Ratification, with the following reservation and declaration:

Reservations:

" In accordance with the first sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 27, the Federal Republic of Germany makes use of the following reservations:

According to Article 6, paragraph 3, it states that it excludes the application of paragraph 1 (b) of Article 6, even in the cases provided for in Article 13, paragraph 2: the central authority may refuse to act while the communications or accompanying documents are not drawn up in the German language or are not accompanied by a translation into that language.

In accordance with Article 17, paragraph 1, the Federal Republic of Germany declares that, in the cases provided for in Articles 8 and 9, the recognition and enforcement of decisions relating to custody are excluded. the grounds provided for in Article 10, paragraph 1.a or 1.b. '

Statement:

' In accordance with Article 2 (3) of the Convention, the Federal Republic of Germany declares that the functions of the central authority (Article 2, paragraph 1) shall be exercised by: the Federal Prosecutor General before the Federal Court of Justice-appointed as the central authority by the Law implementing the Convention on the custody of minors-Neuenburger Strasse 15, 1000 Berlin 61. '

Postal address:

P. O. Box 11 06 29.

1000 Berlin 11.

Federal Republic of Germany.

The Netherlands. 23 May 1990. Acceptance, with the following statement:

" The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts this Convention for the Kingdom of Europe.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notifies that, pursuant to Article 2 of the Convention, the central authority exercising the functions provided for in this Convention shall be for the Kingdom of Europe: the Ministry of Justice in The Hague. "

2 July 1990.

By virtue of the European Convention on the recognition and enforcement of decisions in the custody of minors, as well as the re-establishment of such custody, made in Luxembourg on 20 May 1980, the instrument of which acceptance was deposited by the Kingdom of the Netherlands (for the Kingdom of Europe), on May 23, 1990, I have the honor to make, on behalf of my Government, the following statement:

" The Government of the Netherlands considers that the authorisation for the execution of a decision on the return of a child under that Convention may be refused provided that such action infringes the principles contained therein. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950. '

As a result of an omission, this statement was not communicated to you, as Depositary, at the time of deposit of the instrument of acceptance.

The Government of the Netherlands today underheals such material error by communicating the text of that declaration which will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of my country.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. May 20, 1980. At the time of signing he made the following reservation:

" Under paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Convention, the United Kingdom reserves the right to refuse, for one of the reasons provided for in Article 10 (1) (a), (b), (c) and (d), recognition and enforcement of decisions concerning custody in the cases provided for in Articles 8 and 9 or in one of those Articles. '

Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Hague, 25 October 1980. "Official State Gazette" of 24 August 1987.

Venezuela. 16 October 1996. Signature and ratification with the following reservation:

" All communications for the central authority must be in Spanish language.

The Republic of Venezuela is not obliged to assume any of the expenses referred to in the third paragraph of Article 26. "

Convention to facilitate International Access to Justice. The Hague, 25 October 1980. 'Official Journal of the State' of 30 March 1988.

Estonia. February 2, 1996. Accession. Entry into force on 1 May 1996 with the following statement:

"... in accordance with Article 16 of the Convention, the Republic of Estonia shall not accept directly referred applications."

Convention on the Protection of the Child and Cooperation on International Adoption. The Hague, 29 May 1993. "Official State Gazette" of 1 August 1995.

Venezuela. 10 January 1997. Signature and ratification. Entry into force on 1 May 1997 with the following statement:

" The Republic of Venezuela declares, in accordance with the requirements of Article 22 of the Convention on the Protection of the Child and the Cooperation in Matter of International Adoption, that it only permits compliance by the the central authority of the functions conferred on it by Chapter IV of the Convention, i.e. it does not accept its possible delegation.

Likewise, in accordance with the provisions of Article 25 of the Convention, the Republic of Venezuela declares that it is not considered obliged to recognize the adoptions carried out under the special agreements provided for in paragraph 2. of Article 39. "

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Venezuela Convention, the following central authority is designated:

Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Canada. December 19, 1996. Ratification with the following statements:

Convention application:

" The Government of Canada declares, by virtue of Article 45, that the Convention will apply in British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan and that it may at any time modify the a declaration by a new declaration. '

Statements:

" The Government of Canada also declares, pursuant to Article 22.2, that the functions of the central authority in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan may also be exercised by bodies or persons comply with the requirements set out in this Article.

The Government of Canada declares, by virtue of Article 22.4, that the adoption of children whose habitual residence is in British Columbia will only be possible if the functions attributed to the central authorities are exercised. by public authorities or by bodies recognised in accordance with Chapter III.

The Government of Canada also states that it recognizes that the forms of customary custody practiced by the indigenous people of Canada are not included in Article 2 of the Convention. "

In accordance with Article 46 (2), the Convention shall enter into force for Canada (British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan) on 1 April 1997.

Finland. March 27, 1997. Acceptance. Entry into force on 1 July 1997 with the following notification:

"The Government of the Republic of Finland has the honour to notify that the competence to issue the certification referred to in Article 23.1 corresponds to the Court which has understood the adoption."

"The Office of the Solicitor General of the Philippines."

E. E. CRIMINAL AND PROCEDURAL LAW.

Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Sentences. New York, June 10, 1958. 'Official Journal of the State' of 11 July 1977.

Kyrgyzstan. December 18, 1996. Accession. Entry into force on 18 March 1997.

Mauritania. January 30, 1997. Accession. Entry into force on 30 April 1997.

European Convention on Judicial Assistance in Criminal Matters. Strasbourg, 20 April 1959. 'Official Journal of the State' of 17 September 1982.

Czech Republic. November 19, 1996. Statement:

" In accordance with Article 24 of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and Article 8 of its Additional Protocol, it stated that, for the purposes of the Convention and its Additional Protocol, it shall be considered as judicial authorities the following authorities: the High Prosecutor's Office of the Czech Republic, the Regional and District Fiscalis, the Prague Municipal Prosecutor's Office, the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic, the Regional and District Courts and the Municipal Court of Prague. "

Ireland. 15 October 1996. Signature. 28 November 1996. Ratification. Entry into force on 26 February 1997 with the following reservations and declarations:

" Article 2.

The Government of Ireland reserves the right to refuse assistance in the event that a criminal proceedings against the person referred to in the application for a decision have been initiated or concluded in Ireland or in a third State. assistance in relation to the same acts which gave rise to the procedure in the requesting State in respect of that person.

The Government of Ireland reserves the right to submit the delivery of any material or evidence, in response to a request for assistance, to the condition that such material or evidence is not used without its consent to purposes not specified in the request.

Article 3. The Government of Ireland reserves the right not to make a statement to witnesses or to require the filing of registers or documents where its legislation recognises privileges, the prohibition of the use of coercion or other exemption from the the obligation to bear witness.

Article 11, paragraph 2.

The Government of Ireland is unable to access requests for transit through its territory of a person detained in accordance with Article 11 (2).

Article 21.

The Government of Ireland reserves the right not to apply Article 21.

Article 22.

The Government of Ireland shall not notify the criminal judgments or subsequent measures provided for in Article 22, except to the extent permitted by the organisation of its judicial files. "

Statements:

" Article 5, paragraph 1.

The Government of Ireland reserves the right to submit the execution of rogatory Commissions that will have as an end a record or an embargo on goods subject to the following conditions:

(a) That the infringement that motivates the rogatory Commission is punishable under both the law of the requesting Party and according to Irish law, and

b) That the execution of the rogatory Commission be compatible with the Irish law.

Article 15, paragraph 1.

In relation to the Government of Ireland, references to the "Ministry of Justice" for the purposes of Article 11 (2), Article 15 (1), (3) and (6), Article 21 (1) and Article 22 are understood made to the Department of Justice.

Article 15, paragraph 6.

In accordance with Article 15 (6), the Government of Ireland communicates that requests for assistance under the Convention should be addressed to the Department of Justice.

Article 16, paragraph 2.

In accordance with Article 16 (2), the Government of Ireland reserves the right to establish that the applications and documents annexed to it are accompanied by its translation into Irish or English.

Article 24.

In accordance with Article 24, for the purposes of the Convention, the Government of Ireland considers the following authorities to be judicial authorities:

The District Court;

The Circuit Court;

The High Court;

A Special Criminal Court;

The Criminal Court of Appeal;

The Supreme Court;

The Attorney General of Ireland;

The Director of Public Prosecution;

The Advocate of the Chief State. "

European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. Strasbourg, 27 January 1997. 'Official Journal of the State' of 8 October 1980, 31 August 1982.

Lithuania. 7 June 1996. Signature. 7 February 1997. Ratification. Entry into force on 8 May 1997.

European Agreement on the Transmission of Applications for Legal Aid. Strasbourg, 27 January 1977. 'Official Journal of the State' of 21 December 1985.

Lithuania. 16 October 1996. Ratification. Entry into force on 17 November 1996, with the following statement:

" The Republic of Lithuania declares that in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the Agreement the Ministère de la Justice et le ministère des Affaires étrangères of the Republic of Lithuania must be regarded as an authority Expediora and le Ministère de la Justice (Gedimino av. 30/1, Vilnius 2600, Lithuania). Tel. (370 2) 62 46 70. Fax (370 2) 62 59 40 as the receiving central authority. '

Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Judicial Assistance in Criminal Matters. Strasbourg, 17 March 1978. "Official State Gazette" of 2 August 1991.

Ireland. November 28, 1996. Signature and Ratification. Entry into force on 26 February 1997 with the following statement:

"In accordance with Article 8 (2), the Government of Ireland reserves the right not to accept Chapters II and III."

Agreement between the Member States of the European Communities on the Simplification and Modernization of the Formas of Transmission of Extradition Requests. Donostia (San Sebastian), 26 May 1989. 'Official Journal of the State' of 17 May 1995.

Italy. 3 July 1996. Ratification with the following statements:

At the time of the deposit of the Instrument of Ratification, the Government of the Italian Republic made the following statements:

" For the purposes of Article 1, paragraph 1, the Italian Government designates the Ministry of Grace and Justice as the central authority, Directorate-General for Criminal Matters.

According to Article 5 (3), the Italian Government declares that the Agreement will apply, as far as it is concerned, in its relations with the States which have made the same declaration at the time of the deposit of the instrument of ratification.

In accordance with Article 5.3 of the Agreement, it is provisionally applicable between Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy as from 3 July 1996. '

E. E. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.

European Charter of Local Autonomy. Strasbourg, 15 October 1985. 'Official Journal of the State' of 24 February 1989.

Latvia. 5 December 1996. Signature and Ratification with the following statement:

" In accordance with Article 12 of the European Charter of Local Autonomy, Latvia is considered to be bound by the following Articles:

Article 2.

Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2.

Article 4.

Article 5.

Article 6, paragraph 1.

Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 3.

Article 8, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.

Article 9, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7.

Article 10.

Article 11. "

Agreement on the Readmission of Persons in the Irregular Situation, made in Brussels on 29 March 1991, by the Contracting Parties to the Schengen Agreement and the Republic of Poland. Brussels, 29 March 1991. 'Official Journal of the State' of 19 January and 4 February 1993.

Slovenia. 15 November 1996. Ratification. Entry into force on 1 March 1997, with the following statement:

"The Republic of Slovenia declares its willingness to implement the provisions of the Agreement."

F. Labour force

F. A. GENERAL.

F. B. EIFICOS.

G. MARITIME

G. A. GENERALS.

Amendments to Articles 17 and 18 of the Constitutional Convention of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization, adopted on 15 September 1964. "Official State Gazette" of 19 October 1967.

Mongolia. December 11, 1996. Acceptance.

Amendments to Article 28 of the Constitutional Convention of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization adopted on 28 September 1965. "Official State Gazette" of 17 February 1969.

Mongolia. December 11, 1996. Acceptance.

Amendments to Articles 10, 16, 18, 20, 28, 31, and 32 of the IMO Constitutive Convention. London, 17 October 1974, 'Official Gazette of the State' of 28 March 1978.

Mongolia. December 11, 1996. Acceptance.

Amendments of 14 November 1975 to the Convention on the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization. 'Official Journal of the State' of 15 June 1982.

Mongolia. December 11, 1996. Acceptance.

Amendments to the Convention of the International Maritime Organization adopted on 17 November 1977. Official Gazette of the State of 24 October 1984.

Mongolia. December 11, 1996. Acceptance.

Amendments to the Convention of the International Maritime Organization adopted on 15 November 1979. Official Gazette of the State of 24 October 1984.

Mongolia. December 11, 1996. Acceptance.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Montego Bay, 10 December 1982. 'Official Journal of the State' of 14 February 1997.

Reservations and Statements

Algeria:

At the time of signing:

It is the opinion of the Government of Algeria that its signature of the Final Act and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not imply any change in its position on the non-recognition of certain other signatories, nor any the obligation to cooperate in any field with those signatories.

At the time of ratification:

The People's Democratic Republic of Algeria is not considered bound by the provisions of paragraph 1.b. of Article 287 of [the said Convention] which deals with the submission of disputes to the International Court of Justice.

The People's Democratic Republic of Algeria declares that, in order to submit a dispute to the International Court of Justice, it will be necessary, in each case, for the agreement of all interested parties.

The Algerian Government declares that, in accordance with the provisions of Part II, Section 3, Subsections A and C of the Convention, the passage of warships to the territorial sea of Algeria is subject to authorization with 15 days in advance, except in cases of force majeure as provided for in the Convention.

Angola:

At the time of signing:

" The Government of the People's Republic of Angola reserves the right to interpret any and all articles of the Convention in the context and taking due account of sovereignty and territorial integrity. Angola, in its application to the land, the space and the sea. Details of these interpretations will be given at the time of ratification of the Convention.

This signature does not prejudge the position taken by the Government of Angola on the Convention or to be adopted at the time of ratification. "

Argentina:

At the time of signing:

The signing of the Convention by the Argentine Government does not imply acceptance of the Final Act of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea and in that respect the Argentine Republic, as it did in its written declaration of 8 December 1982 (A/CONF). 62 /WS/35), makes its reservation in the sense that Resolution III, contained in Annex I to the Final Act, does not affect in any way the "Question of the Falkland Islands", which is governed by specific resolutions of the General Assembly 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9 and 38/12, adopted in the framework of the decolonization process.

In this regard and considering that the Falkland Islands, South Sandwich and South Georgia are an integral part of the Argentine territory, the Argentine Government states that it does not recognize or recognize the ownership of the land. nor the exercise by any other State, community or entity, of any right of maritime jurisdiction intended to be covered by a interpretation of Resolution III that violates the rights of Argentina over the Falkland Islands, Sandwich del South and South Georgia and the corresponding maritime areas. Therefore, it neither recognizes nor will recognize and consider any activity or measure that could be carried out or adopted without its consent with reference to this question, which the Argentine Government considers of the greatest importance.

In this sense, the Argentine Government will understand that the materialization of acts of the nature mentioned above is contrary to the resolutions adopted by the United Nations, whose clear objective is the peaceful solution. the dispute over the sovereignty over the islands through bilateral negotiations and with the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

In addition, the Argentine Republic understands that in referring to the Final Act, in paragraph 42, that the Convention "together with Resolutions I to IV constitutes an inseparable whole", it merely describes the procedure that was followed. to avoid a series of separate votes on the Convention and the Resolutions at the Conference. The Convention itself clearly states in Article 318 that only its annexes form an integral part of it, so that any other instrument or document even if it has been adopted by the Conference is not an integral part of the Convention. The United Nations on the Law of the Sea.

At the time of ratification:

" (a) In relation to those provisions of the Convention that deal with the innocent passage through the territorial sea, it is the intention of the Government of the Argentine Republic to continue to apply the current regime at the moment foreign warships through the Argentine territorial sea, being such a regime fully compatible with the provisions of the Convention. "

b) In relation to Part III of the Convention, the Argentine Government declares that the Treaty of Peace and Friendship concluded with the Republic of Chile on 29 November 1984, which entered into force on 2 May 1985 and which was In accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations, both States ratified the validity of Article V of the Treaty of Limits of 1881, according to the United Nations. which the Strait of Magellan is neutralized in perpetuity and assured its free navigation for the flags of all the nations. The Treaty of Peace and Friendship also contains specific provisions and a special annex on navigation which includes regulations for third-flag vessels on the Beagle Channel and other steps and channels of the archipelago of the Earth. Fire. "

(c) The Argentine Republic accepts the provisions on the management and conservation of living resources in the high seas, but considers that they are insufficient, in particular those relating to fish stocks. (i) a multilateral, effective and binding regime which, among other things, facilitates cooperation to prevent and prevent overfishing, and allows for the implementation of a multilateral, effective and binding system of fish stocks; control the activities of fishing vessels on the high seas, as well as the use of methods and fishing.

The Argentine Government, bearing in mind its priority interest in the conservation of resources located in its exclusive economic zone and in the area of the high seas adjacent to it, considers that according to the Provisions of the Convention where the same population or populations of associated species are located in the exclusive economic zone and in the area of the high seas adjacent to it, the Argentine Republic, as a coastal State, and the States that fish those stocks in the area adjacent to its exclusive economic zone must agree on the measures necessary for the conservation of these populations or associated species in the high seas.

Regardless of this, the Argentine Government interprets that, in order to comply with the obligation established by the Convention on the preservation of living resources in its exclusive economic zone and in the area adjacent to it, it is empowered to adopt, in accordance with international law, all measures deemed necessary for that purpose. "

the ratification of the Convention by the Argentine Government does not imply acceptance of the Final Act of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea and in that respect the Argentine Republic, as it did In its written declaration of 8 December 1982 (A/CONF.62/WS/35) it expresses its reservation that Resolution III, contained in Annex I to the Final Act, does not affect in any way the 'Question of the Falkland Islands', which is is governed by the resolutions and specific decisions of the General Assembly of the Nations United 20/2065, 28/3160, 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19, 43/25, 44/406, 45/424, 46/406, 47/408 and 48/408 adopted in the decolonization process.

In this regard and considering that the Falkland Islands, South Sandwich and South Georgia are an integral part of the Argentine territory, the Argentine Government states that it does not recognize or recognize the ownership of the land. nor the exercise by any other State, community or entity, of any right of maritime jurisdiction intended to be covered by a interpretation of Resolution III that violates the rights of the Argentine Republic over the Falkland Islands, South and South Georgia sandwich and corresponding sea areas. Therefore, it neither recognizes nor will recognize and consider any activity or measure that could be carried out or adopted without its consent with reference to this question, which the Argentine Government considers of the greatest importance.

In this sense, the Argentine Government will understand that the materialization of acts of the nature mentioned above is contrary to the resolutions adopted by the United Nations, whose objective is the peaceful solution of the sovereignty dispute over the islands through bilateral negotiations and with the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and essential sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich, and the corresponding maritime and island spaces, as it is an integral part of the national territory. The recovery of these territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respecting the way of life of its inhabitants, and in accordance with the principles of international law, constitute a permanent and inalienable objective of the Argentine people.

In addition, the Argentine Republic understands that, when referring to the Final Act, paragraph 42, that the Convention, together with Resolutions I to IV, constitutes an inseparable whole, it merely describes the procedure that was followed for to avoid a series of separate votes on the Convention and the Resolutions at the Conference. The Convention itself clearly states in Article 318 that only its annexes form an integral part of it, and therefore any instrument or document even if it has been adopted by the Conference is not an integral part of the Convention of the United Nations on the Law of the Sea "

" (e) The Republic of Argentina fully respects the right of free navigation as enshrined in the Convention; however it considers it necessary that the maritime transit of ships with cargoes of high-activity radioactive substances.

The Argentine Government accepts the rules on the prevention of marine pollution contained in Part XII of the Convention but considers that, in the light of the events following the adoption of this instrument It is necessary to supplement and strengthen the provisions to prevent, control and minimise the effects of pollution from the sea by harmful and potentially dangerous substances and radioactive substances of high activity. "

f) In accordance with the provisions of Article 287, the Argentine Government declares that it accepts the following methods of settling disputes on the interpretation or application of the Convention: (a) The International Court of Law of the Sea; (b) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for matters relating to fisheries, protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research and navigation, in accordance with Article 1 of Annex VIII. The Argentine Government also declares that it does not accept the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV with regard to the disputes specified in paragraphs 1a, b) and c) of Article 298. '

Austria:

Statements:

" In the absence of any other peaceful means to which it would give preference, the Government of the Republic of Austria hereby chooses one of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning interpretation or application of the two Conventions in accordance with Article 287 of [the said Convention], in the following order:

1. The International Court of Law of the Sea constituted in accordance with Annex VI.

2. A special arbitral tribunal established in accordance with Annex VIII.

3. The International Court of Justice.

In addition, in the absence of any other peaceful means, the Government of the Republic of Austria hereby recognises and with effect from today's date the validity of the special arbitration for any dispute relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to fisheries, protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research and navigation, including pollution caused by ships and by discharge. "

Belarus:

At the time of signing:

1. The Soviet Socialist Republic of Belarus declares that, in accordance with Article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it accepts as a basic means for the settlement of disputes concerning interpretation or application of the Convention, an arbitral tribunal established in accordance with Annex VII. For the examination of the questions relating to fisheries, the protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research and navigation, including pollution caused by ships and by discharge, the Socialist Republic Soviet de Belarus elects a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII. The Soviet Socialist Republic of Belarus recognises the competence of the International Court of Law of the Sea in relation to issues of early release of ships or their crews which have been retained, as provided for in the Article 292.

2. The Soviet Socialist Republic of Belarus declares that, in accordance with Article 298 of the Convention, it does not accept compulsory procedures leading to compulsory decisions in the examination of disputes relating to the delimitation of maritime areas, disputes relating to military activities and disputes in respect of which the United Nations Security Council exercises the functions conferred upon it by the Charter of the United Nations.

Belgium:

At the time of signing:

The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium has decided to sign the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea because it contains a large number of positive features and achieves a compromise on the same as it is. acceptable to the majority of States. However, as regards the condition of the maritime space, it regrets that the concept of equity, adopted for the delimitation of the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone, will not also apply to the provisions on delimitation of the territorial sea. However, it welcomes the distinctions established by the Convention between the nature of the rights exercised by the coastal States over their territorial sea, on the one hand, and on the continental shelf and its exclusive economic zone, by the another.

It is in the public domain that the Belgian Government cannot also declare itself satisfied with certain provisions of the international regime of marine funds which, although based on a principle which would never be called into question, seems to be not to have chosen the most appropriate way to achieve the result pursued with the speed and safety that would be possible, at the risk of jeopardising the success of a generous undertaking which Belgium constantly encourages and supports. Indeed, certain provisions of Part XI and Annexes III and IV appear to be suffering from serious shortcomings and inadequacies which explain why a consensus on this text was not reached at the last meeting of the Third Conference of the United on the Law of the Sea, in New York, in April 1982. These shortcomings and shortcomings relate in particular to the restriction of access to the area, limitations on production and certain procedures for the transmission of technology, not to mention the angry repercussions of the cost and the financing of the future International Marine Fund Authority and the company's first mining site. The Belgian Government sincerely hopes that these inadequacies and defects will be in fact remedied by the rules, regulations and procedures to be drawn up by the Preparatory Commission with the double intention of facilitating acceptance of the new the international community and to enable the common heritage of humanity to be properly exploited for the benefit of all and, preferably, for the benefit of the least favoured countries. The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium is not alone in thinking that the success of this new regime, the effective establishment of the International Marine Fund Authority and the economic viability of the company will depend to a great extent on quality. and the seriousness of the work of the Preparatory Commission: It therefore considers that all Commission decisions should be taken by consensus, as this is the only way to protect the legitimate interests of all.

As the representatives of France and the Netherlands have already pointed out two years ago, the Belgian Government wishes to make it perfectly clear that, despite its decision to sign the Convention today, the Kingdom of Belgium is not here and now ready to ratify it. It will take a separate decision on this point at a later date, for which it will take into account the work done by the Preparatory Commission to make the international regime of marine funds acceptable to all, with particular emphasis on emphasis on the issues on which he has drawn the attention above.

The Belgian Government also wishes to recall that Belgium is a member of the European Economic Community, to which it has transferred powers in matters governed by the Convention, and in accordance with the provisions of the Annex. IX of the Convention, detailed statements shall be made on the nature and extent of the powers transferred.

You also want to formally call attention to certain points that you consider to be particularly important. For example, it attaches great importance to the conditions under which Articles 21 and 23 of the Convention make the right of innocent passage by the territorial sea subject to the right of an innocent passage, and it is proposed to ensure the strict application of the criteria laid down in the Convention. (a) the relevant international agreements, whether or not the flag States are parties or not. The limitation of the width of the territorial sea, established by Article 3 of the Convention, confirms and codifies a widely observed common practice which is incumbent upon each State to respect, since it is the only one admitted by law. international: The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium shall not, therefore, recognise as territorial waters waters which are or may be said to be beyond 12 nautical miles measured from baselines determined by the coastal State of conformity with the Convention. Having underlined the close link between Article 33 (1) (a) and Article 27 (2) of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium intends to reserve the right, in emergencies and in particular in the case of Case of flagrant infringement, of exercising the powers conferred on the coastal State by the last of those two texts, without prior notification to a diplomatic or consular agent of the flag State, will be submitted as soon as physically possible. Finally, everyone will appreciate that the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium chooses to insist on those provisions of the Convention which grant it the right to protect itself, beyond the territorial sea limit, against any threat pollution and, "a fortiori", against any existing pollution resulting from a marine accident, as well as those provisions which recognise the validity of rights and obligations arising from specific conventions and agreements previously agreed or which may subsequently be concerned in the development of the principles General sitting at the Convention.

In the absence of any other peaceful means, which obviously gives priority, the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium considers it appropriate to choose alternately, and in order of preference, according to Article 287 of the Convention, freedom to do so, the following means of settling disputes relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention:

1. An arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII.

2. The International Court of Law of the Sea constituted in accordance with Annex VI.

3. The International Court of Justice.

Also in the absence of any other peaceful means, the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium wishes to acknowledge here and now the validity of the special arbitration procedure for any dispute concerning interpretation or application. the provisions of the Convention on fisheries, protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research or navigation, including pollution caused by ships and by discharge.

at the moment, the Belgian Government does not wish to make any statement in accordance with Article 298, limiting itself to the earlier one in accordance with Article 287. Finally, the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium is not considered bound by any of the declarations which other States have made or do, at the time of signature or ratification of the Convention, reserving the right, as necessary, to determine their position with respect to each of them at the appropriate time.

Bolivia:

At the time of signing:

By signing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of Bolivia makes the following statement to the international community:

1. The Convention on the Law of the Sea is a perfect instrument and subject to revision within its own forecasts. Bolivia, forming part of it, must at the moment raise the criteria and reforms that are in the Bolivian national interest.

2. Bolivia expresses its confidence that the Convention will, in the near future, ensure the common use of the resources of the marine funds, with equal opportunities and rights for all nations, especially those that are on the way to development.

3. Free access to and from the sea, enshrined in the Convention in favor of landlocked nations, is the faculty that Bolivia has been exercising under bilateral treaties and will continue to exercise in the framework of the Positive International Law, contained in this Convention.

4. It notes that Bolivia is a private country of maritime sovereignty as a consequence of a war and not a natural geographical conformation, and that it will assert all the rights that the Convention agrees for the coastal states, when "This legal status will be restored as an effect of negotiations aimed at returning Bolivia's own sovereign to the Pacific Ocean."

Brazil:

At the time of signing:

" I. Brazil's signature is "ad referendum," that is, it is subject to ratification of the Convention in accordance with Brazilian constitutional procedures, which include approval by the National Congress.

II. The Brazilian Government understands that the regime applied in practice in the maritime area adjacent to the coast of Brazil is compatible with the provisions of the Convention.

III. The Brazilian Government understands that the provision of Article 301, which prohibits " recourse to the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or any other form incompatible with the principles of international rights incorporated in the Charter of the United Nations, " applies in particular to maritime areas subject to the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the coastal State.

IV. The Brazilian Government understands that the provisions of the Convention do not authorize other States to develop in the economic zone exclusive exercises or military maneuvers, in particular those involving the use of weapons or explosives, without the the consent of the coastal State.

V. The Brazilian Government understands that, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, the coastal State has, in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf, the exclusive right to build and authorize and regulate construction, exploitation and use of all facilities and structures, without exception, whatever their nature or purpose.

VI. Brazil exercises sovereign rights over the continental shelf, beyond the distance of 200 nautical miles counted from the base lines, to the outer edge of the continental margin as defined in Article 76.

VII. The Brazilian Government reserves the right to make in due time the declarations provided for in Articles 287 and 298 concerning the settlement of disputes. "

At the time of ratification:

" I. The Brazilian Government understands that the provision of Article 301 prohibits " recourse to the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any State or in any other manner incompatible with the principles of law The International Convention on International Security of the United Nations Charter of Fundamental Rights of the United Nations is applicable in particular to maritime areas subject to the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the coastal State.

II. The Brazilian Government understands that the provisions of the Convention do not authorize other States to carry out military exercises or maneuvers, in particular those involving the use of weapons or explosives, in the exclusive economic zone without the the consent of the coastal State.

III. The Brazilian Government understands that, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, the coastal State has, in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf, the exclusive right to build and authorize and regulate construction, exploitation and use of all facilities and structures, without exception, whatever their nature or purpose. "

Statement made at the time of signature and confirmed at the time of ratification:

" The Government of the Republic of Cape Verde signs the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea with the following interpretations:

I. This Convention recognises the right of coastal States to take measures to safeguard their security interests, including the right to adopt laws and regulations concerning the innocent passage of foreign warships by their sea. territorial or archipelagic waters. This right is fully in line with Articles 19 and 25 of the Convention of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea at the plenary meeting of the Conference on 26 April 1982.

II. The provisions of the Convention relating to the archipelagic waters, the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf compatible with the fundamental objectives and goals that inspire the legislation of the Republic of Cape Verde in relation to its sovereignty and jurisdiction over the sea adjacent to its coasts and between them and on the bed and subsoil of those waters up to the limit of 200 miles.

III. The legal nature of the exclusive economic zone as defined in the Convention and the extent of the rights recognised in it by the coastal State leave no doubt as to its character as a 'sui generis' area of jurisdiction. different from the territorial sea and which is not part of the high seas.

IV. The regulation of uses and activities which are not expressly provided for in the Convention but which are related to sovereign rights and to the jurisdiction of the coastal State in its exclusive economic zone falls within the jurisdiction of the that State, provided that such a regulation does not impede the enjoyment of the freedoms of international communication which are recognised in other States.

V. In the exclusive economic zone, the enjoyment of the freedoms of international communication, in accordance with its definition and with other corresponding provisions of the Convention, excludes any non-peaceful use without the consent of the Riparian state, such as exercises with weapons or other activities that may affect the rights or interests of that State; and also excludes the threat or use of force against territorial integrity, political independence, peace or Safety of the coastal State.

VI. This Convention does not entitle any State to construct, exploit or use facilities or structures in the exclusive economic zone of another State, both those provided for in the Convention and those of any other kind, without the consent of the State riparian.

VII. In accordance with all relevant provisions of the Convention, where both within the exclusive economic zone and in an area beyond this and adjacent to it are the same population or populations of associated species, the States fishing for those stocks in the adjacent area shall be obliged to agree with the coastal State the measures necessary for the conservation of that population or populations of associated species. '

At the time of ratification:

I. [...]

II. The Republic of Cape Verde declares, without prejudice to Article 303 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, that any objects of an archaeological and historical nature that are within the maritime areas on the exercise sovereignty or jurisdiction shall not be withdrawn without prior notification and consent.

III. The Republic of Cape Verde declares that, in order of preference and in accordance with Article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the following procedures are chosen, in order of preference and in accordance with Article 287 for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of that Convention:

(a) The International Court of Law of the Sea.

b) The International Court of Justice.

IV. The Republic of Cape Verde, in accordance with Article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, declares that it does not accept the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of that Convention for the solution of disputes relating to military activities, including military activities of ships and aircraft of state engaged in non-commercial services, and disputes relating to activities aimed at enforcing legal standards in respect of non-commercial activities; the exercise of the sovereign rights or the jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or of a court in accordance with Article 297 (2) and (3) of that Convention. '

Chile:

At the time of signing:

In exercise of the right conferred by Article 310 of the Convention, the Chilean delegation wishes first of all to reiterate in its entirety the manifestation it made at the meeting last April in which the Convention was adopted. This event is reproduced in document A/CONF.62/SR.164. ... in particular the fundamental legal concept of the Convention, that of the exclusive economic zone of 200 miles whose elaboration [the Government of Chile] this country made an important contribution, having been the first to formulate such Thirty-five years ago, in 1947, and after having helped to define it and achieve its international acceptance. The exclusive economic zone has a legal status "sui generis" different from that of the territorial sea and the high sea. It is an area under national jurisdiction, on which the coastal State exercises economic sovereignty and in which third States enjoy freedom of navigation and overflight and the freedoms inherent in international communication. The Convention defines it as a maritime space under the jurisdiction of the coastal State, linked to the territorial sovereignty and the real territory of the latter, under conditions similar to those governing other maritime spaces, namely the territorial sea and the continental shelf. With regard to the straits used for international navigation, the Chilean delegation wishes to reaffirm and reiterate in full the manifestation it made last April, reproduced in document A/CONF.62/SR.164, to which it has previously been reference, as well as the content of the additional written statement of 7 April 1982 contained in document A/CONF.62/WS/19.

With regard to the regime of the marine funds [the Government of Chile wishes], to reiterate the demonstration that the Group of 77 made at the meeting of last April in relation to the legal concept of the common heritage of the The present Convention, which was formally confirmed by consensus by the General Assembly in 1970 and which the present Convention defines as part of the "ius cogens". Any measure taken in contravention of this principle and outside the framework of the seabed regime would be totally invalid and illegal, as the debate of last April showed.

China:

Statement:

1. In accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the People's Republic of China shall enjoy sovereign rights and jurisdiction over an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and over the continental shelf.

2. The People's Republic of China shall, by means of consultations, proceed to the determination of the limits of the maritime jurisdiction with the States whose coasts are facing or adjacent to China, respectively, on the basis of the law and in accordance with the principle of equity.

3. The People's Republic of China reaffirms its sovereignty over all the archipelagos and islands listed in Article 2 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the territorial sea and the contiguous zone which was promulgated on 25 February 1992.

4. The People's Republic of China reaffirms that the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the innocent passage through the territorial sea will not prevent a coastal State from having the right to request, from conformity with its laws and regulations, which a foreign State obtains the advance authorization of the coastal State or a prior notification to it regarding the passage of its warships by the territorial sea of the coastal State.

Costa Rica:

At the time of signing:

The Government of Costa Rica declares that the provisions of the Costa Rican Law according to which foreign vessels must pay license rights to fish in their exclusive economic zone will also apply to species fishing highly migratory, in accordance with the provisions of Article 62 and paragraph 2 of Article 64 of the Convention.

Croatia:

Statement:

" The Republic of Croatia considers that, in accordance with Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties of 29 May 1969, there is no rule of general international law prohibiting the a coastal State to require in its laws and regulations that foreign warships notify their intention of innocent passage through their territorial waters, and to limit the number of warships to which the right of passage is permitted to be exercised innocent at the same time (Articles 17-32 of the Convention). "

Cuba:

At the time of signing:

" At the time of signing the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Cuban delegation declares that, having not reached its power the definitive text of the Convention until a few hours ago, it will leave for the moment of the ratification of the Convention the formulation of any manifestation that it considers relevant with respect to the articles:

287, on the choice of procedure for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention;

292, on the early release of ships and their crews;

298, on optional exceptions to the applicability of section 2;

as well as any other manifestation or declaration that it deems appropriate to do in accordance with Article 310 of the Convention. "

At the time of ratification:

With regard to Article 287 on the choice of procedure for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, the Government of the Republic of Cuba declares that it does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and, consequently, it shall not accept either the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the provisions of Articles 297 and 298.

With regard to Article 292, the Government of the Republic of Cuba considers that, once a financial guarantee has been lodged, the State which has carried out the retention must immediately and without delay proceed to release the vessel and its crew and declares that when this procedure is not followed in respect of their vessels or their crew members will not agree to refer the matter to the International Court of Justice.

Egypt:

1. The Arab Republic of Egypt establishes the width of its territorial sea within 12 nautical miles, according to Article 5 of the Ordinance of 18 January 1951, as amended by the Decree of 17 February 1958, in line with the provisions of Article 3 of the Convention.

2. The Arab Republic of Egypt will publish in the shortest possible letters the basic lines for measuring the width of its territorial sea in the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea, as well as the lines marking the outer boundary of the sea. territorial, in accordance with the usual practice.

Statement relative to the contiguous zone:

The Arab Republic of Egypt has decided that its contiguous zone (defined in its Ordinance of 18 January 1951 as amended by the Presidential Decree of 17 February 1958) extends up to 24 nautical miles from the lines from which the width of the territorial sea is measured, as provided for in Article 33 of the Convention.

Declaration on the passage of nuclear-powered ships and similar vessels by the territorial sea of Egypt:

According to the provisions of the Convention relating to the right of the coastal State to regulate the passage of ships by their territorial sea and taking into account that the passage of foreign vessels of nuclear propulsion and ships carrying them nuclear or other inherently dangerous or harmful substances poses a number of hazards;

Whereas Article 23 of the Convention provides that the vessels in question, when exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea, must have on board documents and observe the special precautionary measures which for such ships have been established in international agreements, the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt declares that it will require the ships mentioned above to obtain authorization before entering the territorial sea of Egypt, until it is Have these international agreements and Egypt become a part in them.

Declaration on the passage of warships by the territorial sea of Egypt:

[With reference to the provisions of the Convention on the Right of the Coastal State to regulate the passage of ships by its territorial sea] warships will be guaranteed the innocent passage through the territorial sea of Egypt, subject to prior notification.

Declaration on passage through the Tiran Strait and the Gulf of Aqaba:

The provisions of the 1979 Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel concerning the passage through the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba fall within the framework of the general regime of the waters which form close to the Part III of the Convention, which provides that the general scheme shall not affect the legal status of the waters which form close and shall include certain obligations with regard to the security and maintenance of order in the coastal State of the strait.

Declaration on the exercise by Egypt of its rights in the exclusive economic zone:

The Arab Republic of Egypt shall exercise from this date the rights conferred upon it by the provisions of Parts V and VI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the exclusive economic zone located in Egypt. beyond its territorial sea and adjacent to it in the Mediterranean Sea and in the Red Sea.

The Arab Republic of Egypt shall also exercise its sovereignty rights in this area for the purposes of exploration and exploitation, conservation and management of natural resources, both living and non-living, of the bed and the subsoil from the sea and from the suprayacent waters to the bed, and with respect to other activities with a view to the economic exploration and exploitation of the area, such as the production of energy derived from water, currents and winds.

The Arab Republic of Egypt shall exercise its jurisdiction over the exclusive economic zone in accordance with the modalities laid down in the Convention with respect to the establishment and use of artificial islands, facilities and structures, marine scientific research, protection and preservation of the marine environment and other rights and duties provided for in the Convention.

The Arab Republic of Egypt proclaims that, in the exercise of its rights and in the performance of its duties in the exclusive economic zone under the Convention, it shall take due account of the rights and duties of the other States and shall act in a manner compatible with the provisions of the Convention.

The Arab Republic of Egypt undertakes to determine the outer limits of its exclusive economic zone in accordance with the rules, criteria and modalities laid down in the Convention.

[The Arab Republic of] Egypt declares that it will take the measures and adopt the necessary provisions to regulate all matters relating to its exclusive economic zone.

Declaration on the procedures chosen for the settlement of disputes in accordance with the Convention:

[In relation to the provisions of Article 287 of the Convention] the Arab Republic of Egypt declares that it accepts the arbitral procedure, whose modalides are defined in Annex 7 to the Convention, as the procedure for the any dispute that may arise between Egypt and any other State in connection with the interpretation or application of the Convention.

The Arab Republic of Egypt also declares that the controversies provided for in Article 297 of the Convention are excluded from the scope of this procedure.

Demonstration on the Arabic language version of the Convention text:

The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt is satisfied that the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea has adopted the new Convention in six languages, including Arabic, equally authentic texts, thus establishing absolute equality between all versions and preventing any one from prevailing over another.

However, when comparing the official version of the Convention in Arabic with the other official versions, it is clear that, in some cases, the official text in Arabic does not exactly correspond to that of the other versions, which does not accurately reflect the content of certain provisions of the Convention which were deemed acceptable and adopted by the States in establishing a legal regime on the seas.

For these reasons, the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt takes the opportunity afforded by the deposit of the instrument of ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to declare that adopt the interpretation which best corroborates the various official texts of the Convention.

European Community:

At the time of signing:

" By signing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the European Economic Community states that it considers that the Convention constitutes, within the framework of the law of the sea, an important effort in the codification and progressive development of international law in the fields referred to in its declaration under Article 2 of Annex IX to the Convention. The Community would like to express the hope that this development will become a useful means of promoting cooperation and state relations between all the countries in these fields.

The Community considers, however, that certain significant provisions of Part XI of the Convention do not favour the development of the activities referred to in that Part, in the light of the fact that several Member States Community has already expressed its position that this Part contains considerable deficiencies and imperfections that require healing. The Community recognises the importance of the work that remains to be done and hopes that an agreement can be reached on conditions for the implementation of a general acceptable mining regime for marine funds, which will therefore be can promote activities in the international area of seabed. The Community, within the limits of its competence, will contribute fully to the task of finding satisfactory solutions.

A separate decision on formal confirmation (*) should be taken at a later stage. Such a decision shall be taken in the light of the results of the efforts made to reach a universally acceptable Convention. "

Competition of the European Communities in respect of matters governed by the Convention on the Law of the Sea (declaration made pursuant to Article 2 of Annex IX to the Convention)

Article 2 of Annex IX to the Convention on the Law of the Sea provides that the participation of an international organisation shall be subject to a declaration specifying the matters governed by the Convention. Convention in respect of which the Member States have transferred the competence to that organisation.

The European Communities were established under the Treaties of Paris and Rome, signed on 18 April 1951 and 25 March 1957 respectively. After being ratified by the signatory States, the Treaties entered into force on 25 July 1952 and 1 January 1958 (**).

In accordance with the provisions referred to above, this declaration indicates the competence of the European Economic Community in matters governed by the Convention.

The Community notes that its Member States have transferred competition to it in respect of the conservation and management of marine fishery resources. Hence, in the field of sea fishing, it is for the Community to adopt the relevant rules and regulations (for which the Member States are responsible) and to enter into external commitments with third States or with organisations. competent international.

(*) Formal confirmation is the expression used in the Convention for ratification by international organisations (see Articles 306 and 3 of Annex IX).

(**) The Treaty of Paris establishing the European Coal and Steel Community was registered at the United Nations Secretariat on 15 March 1957 with the number 3729; the Treaties of Rome for which they were established The European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) were registered on 21 April and 24 April 1958 respectively, with the numbers 4300 and 4301. The present Members of the Communities are the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands The Netherlands and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea shall apply, in respect of matters transferred to the European Economic Community, to the territories in which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community is applied and the conditions laid down in that Treaty.

Also, with regard to the rules and regulations for the protection and preservation of the marine environment, Member States have transferred powers to the Community as expressed in provisions adopted by the Community and as reflected in its participation in certain international agreements (see Annex).

With regard to the provisions of Part XI, the Community enjoys certain powers since its purpose is to achieve an economic union based on a customs union.

With regard to the provisions of Part XI, the Community enjoys competition in matters of commercial policy, including the control of unfair economic practices.

The exercise of powers which the Member States have transferred to the Community under the Treaties is, by its very nature, subject to continuous development. As a result, the Community reserves the right to make further declarations at a later date.

ANNEX

Community texts applicable in the field of the protection and preservation of the marine environment and which relate directly to matters governed by the Convention

Council Decision of 3 December 1981 establishing a Community system of information for the control and reduction of pollution caused by the discharge of oil and other dangerous substances at sea (81/971/EEC) (OJ L 355, 10-12-1981, p. 52).

Council Directive of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community (76/464/EEC) (OJ L 129, 18-5-1976, p. 23).

Council Directive of 16 June 1975 on the management of waste oils (75/439/EEC) (OJ L 194, 25-7-1975, p. 23).

Council Directive of 20 February 1978 on waste from the titanium dioxide industry (78/176/EEC) (OJ L 54, 25-2-1978, p. 19).

Council Directive of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish waters (79/923/EEC) (OJ L 281, 10-11-1979, p. 47).

Council Directive of 22 March 1982 on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of mercury from the electrolysis sector of alkaline chlorides (82/176/EEC) (OJ L 81, 27-3-1982, p. 29).

Council Directive of 26 September 1983 on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of cadmium (83/513/EEC) (OJ L 291, 24-10-1983, p. 1 and sigs.).

Council Directive of 8 March 1984 on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of mercury from sectors other than the electrolysis of alkali chlorides (84/156/EEC) (OJ No L 74, 17-3-1984, p. 49 and sigs.).

ANNEX

The Community has also concluded the following Conventions:

Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution of Land Origin (Council Decision 75 /437/EEC of 3 March 1975, published in OJ L 194, 25-7-1975, p. 5).

Convention on Long-distance Transboundary Air Pollution (Council Decision of 11 June 1981, published in OJ L 171, 27-6-1981, p. 11).

Convention for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution and protocol on the prevention of pollution of the Mediterranean Sea caused by discharges from ships and aircraft (Council Decision 77 /585/EEC of 25 June 2000) June 1977, published in OJ L 240, 19-9-1977, p. 1).

Protocol on cooperation to combat in emergency situations the pollution of the Mediterranean Sea caused by hydrocarbons and other harmful substances (Council Decision 81 /420/EEC of 19 May 1981, published in OJ L 162, 19-6-1981, p. 4).

Protocol of 2 and 3 April 1983 on specially protected areas of the Mediterranean (OJ L 68/36, 10-3-1984). '

Finland:

At the time of signing:

" With regard to those parts of the Convention dealing with the innocent passage through the territorial sea, it is the intention of the Government of Finland to continue to apply the current regime to the passage through the Finnish territorial sea of ships foreign war and other State-owned vessels used for non-commercial purposes, since such a regime is fully compatible with the Convention. "

Statement made at the time of signature and confirmed at the time of ratification:

" The Government of Finland understands that the derogation from the transit regime for the straits provided for in Article 35.c of the Convention applies to the Strait between Finland (the Asland Islands) and Sweden. Since the passage through this strait is regulated in part by an existing long-standing international convention, the current legal regime for such a strait will remain unchanged after the Convention enters into force. "

Statements made at the time of ratification:

" In accordance with Article 287 of the Convention, Finland chooses the International Court of Justice of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea as a means of settling disputes concerning interpretation or implementation of the Convention and the Agreement on the implementation of Part XI thereof.

Finland recalls that, as a Member State of the European Community, it has transferred powers to the Community in respect of certain matters governed by the Convention. In due time, in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX to the Convention, a detailed statement on the nature and the scope of the powers transferred to the European Community shall be made. '

France:

At the time of signing:

1. The provisions of the Convention relating to the condition of the various maritime spaces and the legal regime for the uses and protection of the marine environment confirm and consolidate the general rules of the law of the sea and therefore empower the French Republic not to recognize the obligation against it of any foreign laws or regulations that do not conform to those general rules.

2. The provisions of the Convention relating to the area of sea and ocean funds and their subsoil outside the limits of national jurisdiction are marked by considerable shortcomings and imperfections in the area of exploration and exploitation of the that area which shall require its rectification by the adoption by the Preparatory Commission of draft rules, regulations and procedures to ensure the effective establishment and functioning of the International Fund Authority Seafarers.

To this end, it shall be sought to reach a general agreement within the Preparatory Commission on any matter of importance, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 37 of the Third Party's Rules of Procedure. United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea

3. With regard to Article 140, the signature of the Convention by France shall not be construed as meaning that it would change its position with regard to resolution 1514 (XV).

4. The provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 230 of the Convention shall not preclude the adoption of provisional or preventive measures against the parties responsible for the operation of foreign vessels, such as the immobilisation of the vessel. Nor shall it exclude the imposition of penalties other than pecuniary penalties for any intentional and serious act causing contamination.

At the time of ratification:

1. France recalls that, as a Member State of the European Community, it has transferred powers to the Community in certain areas governed by the Convention. In due time, in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX to the Convention, a detailed statement on the nature and scope of the powers transferred to the European Community shall be made.

2. France rejects declarations or reservations which are contrary to the provisions of the Convention. France also rejects unilateral measures or measures resulting from an agreement between States which would have an adverse effect on the provisions of the Convention.

3. With reference to the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 298, France does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV with regard to the following disputes:

The disputes concerning the interpretation or application of Articles 15, 74 and 83 concerning the delimitation of the sea areas, or those relating to bays or historic titles.

Controversies relating to military activities, including military activities of ships and aircraft of state engaged in non-commercial services, and disputes relating to activities to enforce the legal rules in respect of the exercise of sovereign rights or of jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal pursuant to Article 297 (2).

The disputes over which the United Nations Security Council exercises the functions conferred upon it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to withdraw the matter from its order of day or ask the Parties to solve it by the means provided for in this Convention.

Germany (9):

Manifestations:

The Federal Republic of Germany recalls that, as a Member State of the European Community, it has transferred powers to the Community in respect of certain matters governed by the Convention. In due time, and in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX to the Convention, it shall make a detailed statement on the nature and extent of the powers transferred to the European Community.

For the Federal Republic of Germany the nexus between Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 and the Agreement of 28 July 1994 on the application of the Convention on the of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as provided for in Article 2 (1) of that Agreement.

In the absence of any other peaceful means, to which the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany would give preference, this Government considers it useful to freely choose one of the following means for the settlement of disputes on the interpretation or application of the two conventions, as permitted by Article 287 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, in the following order:

1. The International Court of Law of the Sea constituted in accordance with Annex VI.

2. The arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII.

3. The International Court of Justice.

Also in the absence of any other peaceful means, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany hereby acknowledges, with effect from today's date, the validity of the special arbitration for any dispute that (a) the interpretation or application of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, in the field of fisheries, protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research and navigation, including pollution caused by ships and by vertigo.

In relation to the similar statements made by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany during the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, the light of the declarations already made or pending to be made by the States at the time of signature, ratification or accession to the Convention on the Law of the Sea states the following:

Territorial sea, archipelagic waters, narrow.

The provisions on the territorial sea generally represent a series of rules in which the legitimate desire of the coastal states to protect their sovereignty and that of the international community to exercise their right is reconciled. Step. The right to extend the breadth of the territorial sea up to 12 nautical miles will significantly increase the importance of the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea for all ships, including warships, merchant ships and vessels. fishing; this is a fundamental right of the community of nations.

It cannot be considered that any of the provisions of the Convention, which up until now reflect the current international law, of the right to the coastal State to make the innocent passage of any specific category of foreign vessels to the prior consent or notification.

A prerequisite for the recognition of the right of the coastal State to extend the territorial sea is the regime of transit through the straits used for international navigation. Article 38 limits the right of transit only in cases where there is an equally convenient route as regards its hydrographic and navigation characteristics, including the economic aspect of navigation.

According to the provisions of the Convention, the passage through the archipelagic sea lanes does not depend on the designation by the archipelagic States of sea lanes or specific air routes to the extent that there are routes through of the archipelago normally used for international navigation.

Exclusive economic zone.

In the exclusive economic zone, which is a new concept of international law, the coastal states are granted precise rights and jurisdiction in matters of resources. All other States will continue to enjoy the freedom of navigation and overflight of the high seas and other internationally legitimate uses of the sea. These uses will be exercised in a peaceful manner, that is, in accordance with the principles incorporated in the Charter of the United Nations.

Therefore, the exercise of those rights cannot be interpreted as affecting the security of the coastal State or its rights and duties under international law. Consequently, the notion of a 200-mile zone of general rights of sovereignty and jurisdiction of the coastal State cannot be maintained in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention.

In Articles 56 and 58, a careful and delicate balance has been established between the interests of the coastal State and the freedoms and rights of all other States. This balance includes the reference in Article 58 (2) to Articles 88 to 115, which shall apply to the exclusive economic zone in so far as they are not incompatible with Part V. Nothing in part V is incompatible with Article 89 which declares the claims of sovereignty illegitimate.

According to the Convention, the coastal State does not enjoy the residual rights in the exclusive economic zone. In particular, the rights and jurisdiction of the coastal State in that area do not include the rights to obtain notification of military exercises or maneuvers or to authorise them.

Apart from the artificial islands, in the exclusive economic zone the coastal State will only have the right to authorize, construct, exploit and use the facilities and structures that have economic purposes.

The high seas.

As a geographically unfavoured state with important interests in the traditional uses of the seas, the Federal Republic of Germany remains committed to the principle of freedom of the high seas. This principle, which has governed all uses of the sea for centuries, has been affirmed and, in various fields, adapted to the new needs in the provisions of the Convention, which will therefore have to be interpreted as far as possible in accordance with that traditional principle.

landlocked states.

With regard to the regulation of the freedom of transit enjoyed by landlocked states, transit through the territory of the transit states should not interfere with the sovereignty of these states. In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 125, the rights and facilities provided for in Part X do not in any way prejudice the sovereignty or legitimate interests of the States of transit. The precise content of the freedom of transit in each individual case should be the subject of an agreement between the State of transit and the landlocked State concerned. In the absence of such an agreement in relation to the conditions and arrangements for exercising the right of access of persons and goods to transit through the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, the latter shall be governed solely by law. (a) national legislation, in particular as regards the means and means of transport and the use of traffic infrastructure.

Marine scientific research.

Although traditional freedom of research has suffered considerable erosion in the Convention, this freedom will remain in force for States, international organisations and private entities in some areas. maritime funds, for example, beyond the continental shelf and on the high seas. However, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf, which are of particular interest to marine scientific research, will be subject to a consent regime, one of the basic elements of which is the obligation of the State. According to paragraph 3 of Article 246, the riparian grant consent under normal circumstances. In this respect, the promotion and creation of favourable conditions for scientific research, as required by the Convention, are general principles governing the application and interpretation of all relevant provisions of the Convention. Convention.

The regime of marine scientific research on the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles denies the riparian state the discretion to refuse its consent, pursuant to paragraph 5.a) of Article 246, outside the areas which it has publicly designated in accordance with the requirements set out in paragraph 6. In relation to the obligation to make public the information on operating activities or exploratory operations in the designation process, paragraph 6 of Article 246, which explicitly excludes the obligation to make public, is to be taken into account. provide details on the information provided.

Greece (10):

Interpretative statement on the straits made at the time of signing and confirmed in the time of ratification:

"This declaration refers to the provisions of Part III," on the straits used for international navigation " and more in particular to the application in practice of Articles 36, 38, 41 and 42 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea

In areas where there are numerous scattered islands that form a large number of alternative straits that actually constitute a single and same international shipping route, Greece interprets that the coastal State concerned has the responsibility to designate the route or routes, in such alternative straits, by which third country vessels and aircraft may pass under the transit transit procedure, in such a way that, on the one hand, the requirements of international and flyover navigation and, on the other hand, the minimum conditions of the safety of both ships and aircraft in transit and those of the coastal State. "

At the time of ratification:

1. By ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Greece guarantees all rights and assumes all obligations under the Convention.

Greece will determine when and how it will exercise these rights, in accordance with its national strategy. This will not imply that Greece will in any way give up those rights.

2. Greece wishes to reiterate the interpretative declaration on the straits which it deposited at the time of the adoption of the Convention and at the time of signature [See the above " interpretative declaration on the straits made at the time of the signature and confirmed in the ratification "].

3. In accordance with Article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of the Hellenic Republic hereby elects the International Court of Law of the Sea, which is constituted in accordance with Annex VI, to the Convention, as the means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.

4. Greece, as a Member State of the European Union, has granted the latter jurisdiction in respect of certain matters relating to the Convention. Following the deposit by the European Union of its instrument of formal confirmation, Greece will make a special declaration setting out in detail the matters covered by the Convention and the jurisdiction of which it has transferred to the Convention. European Union.

5. The ratification by Greece of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not imply that it recognises the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and therefore does not constitute the establishment of relations with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. the virtue of a treaty.

Guinea:

At the time of signing:

The Government of the Republic of Guinea reserves the right to interpret any article of the Convention in the context and taking due account of the sovereignty of Guinea and its territorial integrity as regards the land, space and sea.

Guinea Bissau:

With regard to Article 287 on the choice of a procedure for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [the Government of Guinea-Bissau], does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and therefore will not accept that jurisdiction in respect of Articles 297 and 298.

Iceland:

"According to Article 298 of the Convention [the Government of Iceland] reserves the right that any interpretation of Article 83 be submitted to conciliation in accordance with Section 2 of Annex V to the Convention."

India:

Statements:

" (a) The Government of the Republic of India reserves the right to make at the appropriate time the declarations provided for in Articles 287 and 298 concerning the settlement of disputes.

(b) The Government of the Republic of India interprets that the provisions of the Convention do not authorize other States to carry out in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf military exercises or exercises, in particular those involving the use of arms or explosives, without the consent of the coastal State. "

Iran (Islamic Republic of):

At the time of signing:

Interpretative statement in relation to the straits:

"In relation to Article 310 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran takes the opportunity at this solemn moment to sign the Convention, to record its" interpretation ". in relation to certain provisions of the Convention. The main purpose of the formulation of these statements is to avoid any future interpretation of the following articles in a manner incompatible with the original intention and previous positions or in disagreement with the laws and regulations. national regulations of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran ... interprets that:

1. Although the Convention is intended to be of general application and is of a legislative nature, some of its provisions are merely the product of a "quid pro quo" which does not necessarily seek to codify existing customs or uses. (practices) established as compulsory. It therefore seems natural and in harmony with Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties of 1969 that only States Parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea have the right to benefit from the rights of the contracts created in the same.

The above considerations correspond specifically (but not exclusively) to the following:

The right of transit through the straits used by international navigation (Part III, Section 2, Article 38).

The notion of "exclusive economic zone" (Part V).

All matters relating to the international area of the seabed and to the concept of "common heritage of humanity" (Part XI).

2. In the light of customary international law, the provisions of Article 21, interpreted in conjunction with Article 19 (on the meaning of the innocent step) and Article 25 (on the protection rights of the coastal State) (although implicitly) the rights of the coastal States to take measures to safeguard their security interests, including the adoption of laws and regulations relating, inter alia, to the requirement for prior authorisation to warships wishing to exercise the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.

3. The right referred to in Article 125 concerning access to the sea and from the sea of landlocked states is derived from the mutual agreement between the States concerned on the basis of the principle of reciprocity.

4. The provisions of Article 70 concerning 'the right of States with special geographical characteristics' are without prejudice to the exclusive right of the coastal States of the closed and semi-closed maritime regions (such as the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman) with a large population that predominantly depends on relatively small reserves of living resources in the same regions.

5. Islets located in closed and semi-closed seas that could potentially maintain human habitation or economic life of their own, but which, due to climatic conditions, the restriction of resources or other limitations, have not been put in place. still in development, fall within the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 121 concerning the "regime of the islands", and therefore have full effect on the establishment of the boundaries of the various maritime areas of the coastal States interested.

Also, with respect to "mandatory procedures conducive to binding decisions", the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while fully supporting the concept of settlement of all disputes (i) international agreements by peaceful means, while recognizing the need and desirability of resolving, in an atmosphere of mutual understanding and cooperation, questions relating to the interpretation and application of the Convention on the Law of the At this time it will not rule on the choice of procedures according to Articles 287 and 298 and reserves its positions to make them known in due time. "

Iraq (11):

At the time of signing:

According to Article 310 of the Convention and with a view to harmonizing Iraqi laws and regulations with the provisions of the Convention, the Republic of Iraq has

decided to issue the following statement:

1. This signature does not in any way mean the recognition of Israel and does not imply any relationship with Israel.

2. Iraq interprets that the provisions applying to all types of straits contained in Part III of the Convention are also applicable to navigation between islands situated near those straits if the sea lanes entering or They come out of these straits and are defined by the competent international organization located near those islands.

Ireland:

Statement:

" Ireland recalls that, as a member of the European Community, it has transferred powers to the Community in respect of certain matters governed by the Convention. A detailed statement on the nature and extent of the powers transferred to the European Community shall be made at the appropriate time, in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX to the Convention. "

Italy:

Statements made at the time of signing and confirmed at the time of ratification:

" By signing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, Italy wishes to state that, in its opinion, Part XI and Annexes III and IV contain considerable imperfections and shortcomings. which shall be remedied by the adoption by the Preparatory Commission of the International Marine Fund Authority and by the International Court of Law of the Sea of appropriate draft rules, regulations and procedures.

Italy also wishes to confirm the following points set out in its written demonstration of 7 March 1983:

According to the Convention, the coastal State does not enjoy residual rights in the exclusive economic zone. In particular, the rights and jurisdiction of the coastal State in that area do not include the right to obtain notification of military exercises or maneuvers or to authorise them.

In addition, the rights of the coastal State to build and to authorize the construction, operation and use of facilities and structures in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf is limited to the categories of such facilities and structures listed in Article 60 of the Convention.

None of the provisions of the Convention, which in this area complies with customary international law, can be considered to entitle the coastal State to make the innocent passage of certain categories of foreign vessels to prior consent or notification. "

At the time of ratification:

" When depositing its instrument of ratification, Italy recalls that, as a Member State of the European Community, it has transferred powers to the Community in respect of certain matters governed by the Convention. A detailed statement on the nature and extent of the powers transferred to the European Community shall be made in due time and in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX to the Convention.

Italy has the honour to declare, pursuant to paragraph 1 (a) of Article 298 of the Convention, that it does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV with respect to disputes relating to the interpretation of Articles 15, 74 and 83 concerning the delimitation of the sea areas, or the relative or bays or historical titles.

In any event, it should not be construed that the present declarations assume the acceptance or rejection by Italy of other statements concerning matters other than those examined in those, made by others. States at the time of signature or ratification.

Italy reserves the right to make subsequent declarations in relation to the Convention and to the Agreement. "

Kuwait (11):

Interpretation:

The ratification by Kuwait of such a Convention does not in any way mean the recognition of Israel or the establishment of relations with Israel under a treaty.

Luxembourg:

At the time of signing:

The Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has decided to sign the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea because it represents, in the context of the Law of the Sea, an important contribution to codification and progressive development of international law.

However, in the opinion of the Luxembourg Government, certain provisions of Part XI and Annexes III and IV of the Convention are subject to serious shortcomings and shortcomings which also explain why it was not possible to achieve a consensus on the text at the last session of the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea, held in New York in April 1982.

These shortcomings and defects concern, in particular, the compulsory transmission of technology and the cost of financing the future Marine Funds Authority and the company's first mining site. They shall be subject to the rules, regulations and procedures laid down by the Preparatory Commission. The Luxembourg Government recognises that the work that remains to be done is of great importance and hopes that an agreement will be possible on the modalities for the establishment of a general marine fund mining scheme. acceptable and therefore promote the promotion of the activities of the international area of the seabed.

As the representatives of France and the Netherlands have already pointed out two years ago, [the Luxembourg Government] wishes to make it perfectly clear that, notwithstanding its decision to sign the Convention today, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg does not is determined here and now to ratify it.

It will take a separate decision on this point at a later date, in which it will take into account what the Preparatory Commission has done to make the international regime of marine funds acceptable to all.

[The Luxembourg Government] also wishes to recall that Luxembourg is a member of the European Economic Community and has, in its virtue, transferred powers to the Community in certain fields covered by the Convention. Detailed statements on the nature and extent of the powers transferred shall be made in due time and in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX to the Convention.

Like other members of the Community, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg also reserves its position on all the statements made during the final session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Right of the Sea, in Montego Bay, which may contain interpretative elements relating to the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Malaysia:

Statements:

" 1. The Government of Malaysia shall not be bound by any domestic legislation or by any declaration issued by other States at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention. Malaysia reserves the right to express its position in relation to those legislations or declarations at the appropriate time. In particular, the maritime claims of any other State which has signed or ratified the Convention, where such claims are incompatible with the relevant principles of international law and with the provisions of the The Convention on the Law of the Sea and undermines the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of Malaysia in its maritime areas.

2. The Malaysian Government understands that the provisions of Article 301 prohibiting recourse to the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any State, or in any other manner incompatible with the principles of International law incorporated in the Charter of the United Nations are applicable in particular to maritime areas under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the coastal State.

3. The Malaysian Government also understands that the provisions of the Convention do not allow other States to carry out military exercises or maneuvers, in particular those involving the use of arms or explosives, in the exclusive economic zone without the the consent of the coastal State.

4. In view of the intrinsic danger of the passage of nuclear-powered vessels or of ships carrying nuclear or other substances of a similar nature and in the light of the provisions of Article 22 (2) of the Convention on the Right of the Sea in relation to the right of the coastal State to limit the passage of those vessels to the sea lanes designated by the State within its territorial sea, as well as the provisions of Article 23 of the Convention, which requires that the vessels carry documents and observe special precautionary measures as set out in the agreements In the light of the above, the Malaysian Government requires that the abovementioned vessels obtain prior authorisation of passage before entering the territorial sea of Malaysia until the time when the vessels have been concluded. international agreements referred to in Article 23 and Malaysia has become a party to them. In all circumstances, the flag State of such vessels shall bear all responsibility for any losses or damage resulting from the passage of such vessels by the territorial sea of Malaysia.

5. The Malaysian Government would also like to reiterate the manifestation of Article 233 of the Convention in its application to the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, which is annexed to a letter dated 28 April 1982 to the President of the UNCLOS III and contained in document A/CONF.62/L 145, UNCLOS III Off. Rec., vol. XVI, p. 250-251.

6. The ratification of the Convention by the Malaysian Government will in no way affect its rights and obligations under any agreements and treaties on maritime matters in which the Malaysian Government is a party.

7. The Malaysian Government interprets Articles 74 and 83 in the sense that, in the absence of an agreement on the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf or other maritime areas, to reach an equitable solution, the must be the midline, namely a line each point of which is equidistant from the nearest points of the baselines from which the width of the territorial sea of Malaysia and those other States is measured.

Malaysia is also of the opinion that in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, namely Articles 56 and 76, if the sea area is at a distance of 200 nautical miles or less from the baselines, the limit of the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone will be found on the same (identical) line.

8. The Malaysian Government declares, without prejudice to Article 303 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, that any objects of an archaeological and historical nature within the sea areas on which it exercises sovereignty or jurisdiction shall not be withdrawn without prior notification and consent.

Mali:

At the time of signing:

At the signing of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Republic of Mali remains convinced of the interdependence of the interests of all peoples and of the need to base international cooperation, The European Council, in particular, has expressed its support for the development of the European Union in the field of human rights and the rule of law.

Thus, it reiterates its demonstration of 30 April 1982, in which it reaffirmed that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in whose negotiation and adoption the Government of Mali participated in good faith, constitutes a Improved international legal instrument.

However, Mali signs such a Convention without prejudice to any other instrument concluded or which the Republic of Mali may conclude with a view to improving its status as a disadvantageous and landlocked geographical state. It does so without prejudice to the elements of any position which the Government of Mali considers it necessary to adopt in respect of any issue of the Law of the Sea under Article 310.

In any case, the present signature has no effect on the trajectory of Mali's foreign policy or on the rights of its sovereignty under the Constitution or the Charter of the United Nations and any other relevant rule of international law.

Malta (12):

Statement:

The ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is a reflection of Malta's recognition of the many positive elements it contains, including its comprehensiveness, and its role in the implementation of the The concept of common heritage of humanity.

At the same time, it is aware that the effectiveness of the regime established by the Convention depends to a large extent on the achievement of its universal acceptance, especially by the major maritime states and by the more which are the most affected by the regime.

The effectiveness of the provisions of Part IX on "closed or semi-closed seas", which provide for the cooperation of the coastal States of these seas, such as the Mediterranean, depends on the acceptance of the Convention by the States concerned. To this end, the Government of Malta actively promotes and supports all efforts to achieve this universality.

The Government of Malta interprets that Articles 69 and 70 of the Convention mean that access to fishing in the exclusive economic zone of third States by vessels of developed states without littoral and state The geographical area of the geographical area of the territory of the Member State concerned shall be the same as those of other States which are nationals of other States which have fish habitually in that area.

The baselines established by the Maltese legislation for the delimitation of the territorial sea and the associated areas, in respect of the archipelago of the islands of Malta and which incorporates the island of Filfla as one of the points from which the baselines are drawn, is fully in line with the relevant provisions of the Convention.

The Government of Malta interprets Articles 74 and 83 in the sense that, in the absence of agreement on the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf or other maritime areas, to arrive at a solution equitable, the limit must be the average line, that is, a line each point of which is equidistant from the nearest points of the baselines from which the width of the territorial waters of Malta and those other States is measured.

The exercise of the right of innocent passage of warships by the territorial sea of other states should also be understood as being of a peaceful nature. It is easy to have effective and rapid means of communication which make the prior notification of the exercise of the right of innocent passage of warships to be reasonable and not incompatible with the Convention. Some States already require such notification. Malta reserves the right to legislate on this point.

Malta is also of the opinion that such a requirement for notification is necessary with regard to nuclear-powered vessels or ships carrying nuclear or other inherently dangerous substances or substances. harmful. The entry of those vessels into the Maltese inland waters without the necessary authorisation shall also not be permitted.

Malta is of the opinion that the sovereign immunity referred to in Article 236 does not exempt a State from such an obligation, moral or otherwise, by accepting liability for compensation and compensation in respect of damages caused by pollution of the marine environment by any warship, auxiliary vessels, other vessels or aircraft belonging to or used by a State and used for a non-commercial public service.

Legislation and regulations relating to the passage of ships through the territorial sea of Malta are compatible with the provisions of the Convention. At the same time, it reserves the right to further develop this legislation in accordance with the Convention as necessary.

Malta declares itself in favour of establishing sea lanes and special regimes for foreign fishing vessels crossing its territorial sea.

The statement made by the European Community at the time of the signing of the Convention is taken note of the fact that its Member States have transferred powers to it in respect of certain aspects of the Convention. Convention. In view of Malta's request to join the European Community, it is understood that this will also apply to Malta when it acquires that membership.

The Government of Malta is not considered bound by any of the declarations made or otherwise made by other States at the time of signature or ratification of the Convention, reserving the right, as necessary, to determine their position with respect to each of them at the appropriate time. In particular, the ratification of the Convention does not imply the automatic recognition of the maritime or territorial claims of any of the signatory or ratifying States.

Netherlands:

A) Declaration in accordance with Article 287 of the Convention:

" The Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby declares that, taking into account Article 287 of the Convention, it accepts the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in the settlement of disputes relating to interpretation. and application of the Convention with States Parties to the Convention which have also accepted such jurisdiction.

Objections:

The Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to any declaration or demonstration that excludes or modifies the legal effects of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

This is the case in particular for the following subjects:

I. Innocent passage through the territorial sea.

The Convention allows the innocent passage through the territorial sea of all ships, including foreign warships, nuclear-powered vessels and ships carrying nuclear or hazardous waste, without any prior consent or notification, and with due observance of the special precautionary measures laid down for such vessels by international agreements.

II. Exclusive economic zone.

1. It went through the exclusive economic zone.

Nothing in the Convention restricts the freedom of navigation of nuclear-powered vessels or ships carrying nuclear or hazardous waste by the exclusive economic zone, provided that such navigation is in conformity with the applicable rules of international law. In particular, the Convention does not authorise the coastal State to make the navigation of such vessels subject to the exclusive economic zone prior to prior consent or notification.

2. Military exercises in the exclusive economic zone.

The Convention does not authorize the coastal State to prohibit military exercises in its exclusive economic zone. The rights of the coastal State in its exclusive economic zone are listed in Article 56 of the Convention, and no such power is granted to the coastal State. In the exclusive economic zone all States enjoy freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the relevant provisions of the Convention.

3. Facilities in the exclusive economic zone.

The coastal state enjoys the right to authorise, exploit and use facilities and structures in the economic zone exclusively for economic purposes. The jurisdiction over the establishment and use of facilities and structures is limited to the rules contained in paragraph 1 of Article 56 and is subject to the obligations laid down in Article 56, paragraph 2, and in Articles 58 and 58. 60 of the Convention.

4. Residual duties.

The coastal state does not enjoy residual rights in the exclusive economic zone. The rights of the coastal State in its exclusive economic zone are those listed in Article 56 of the Convention and cannot be extended unilaterally.

III. It went through the straits.

The sea routes and routes through the straits should be established in accordance with the rules laid down in the Convention. Considerations relating to internal security and public order shall not affect the navigation of the straits used for international navigation. The application to the straits of other international instruments is subject to the relevant articles of the Convention.

IV. Archipelagic states.

The implementation of Part IV of the Convention is limited to a state entirely constituted by one or more archipelagos, and may include other islands. The claims of the archipelagic condition which contravene Article 46 shall not be accepted.

The status of an archipelagic State, and the rights and obligations arising from that condition, may be invoked only in accordance with the conditions laid down in Part IV of the Convention.

V. Fisheries.

The Convention does not confer jurisdiction on the coastal State with respect to the exploitation, conservation and management of living marine resources other than sedentary species, beyond the exclusive economic zone.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the conservation and management of stocks of shared fish and highly migratory species should take place, in accordance with Articles 63 and 64 of the Convention, on the the basis of international cooperation in the relevant sub-regional and regional organisations.

VI. Underwater cultural heritage.

The jurisdiction over objects of archaeological and historical nature found at sea is limited to the provisions of Article 149 and 303 of the Convention.

However, the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that it may be necessary to further develop, through international cooperation, international law on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage.

VII. Baselines and delimitation.

The claim that the drawing of the baselines or the delimitation of the sea areas is in conformity with the Convention will only be acceptable if those lines and zones have been established in accordance with the Convention.

VIII. National legislation.

As a general principle of international law, embodied in Articles 27 and 46 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, States may not invoke their national law as a justification for non-compliance of the Convention.

IX. Territorial claims.

The ratification by the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not imply the recognition or acceptance of any territorial claims made by a State Party to the Convention.

X. Article 301.

In accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, Article 301 shall be interpreted as applying to the territory and territorial sea of a coastal State.

XI. General statement.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands reserves the right to make subsequent declarations concerning the Convention and the Agreement in response to future declarations and demonstrations.

C. Declaration in accordance with Annex IX to the Convention:

When depositing its instrument of ratification, the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, as a Member State of the European Community, it has transferred powers to the Community in respect of certain matters governed by the Convention. A detailed statement on the nature and extent of the powers transferred to the European Community shall be made in due time and in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX to the Convention. '

Nicaragua:

At the time of signing:

In accordance with Article 310, Nicaragua warns that the adaptations of domestic law that may be necessary for its harmonization with the Convention will be a consequence of the constitutional work whose process has The Convention is an integral part of the resolutions adopted on 10 December 1982 and the annexes to the Convention.

For the purposes of Articles 287 and 298, and of other articles relevant to the interpretation and application of the Convention, the Government of Nicaragua welcomes the power granted to it by the Government to do more additional or clarifying statements of his/her opportunity.

Norway:

Declaration under Article 310 of the Convention:

" According to Article 309 of the Convention, no reservations or exceptions may be made except those expressly authorized by its provisions. A declaration under Article 310 may not have the effect of an exception or reservation for the State that the formula. Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of Norway declares that it is not considered bound by the declarations under Article 310 of the Convention which have been or are made by other States or international organisations. The passivity with respect to these declarations shall not be construed as acceptance or rejection of such statements. The Government reserves the right of Norway to take position at any time on such statements in the manner it deems appropriate. "

Declaration under Article 287 of the Convention:

"The Government of the Kingdom of Norway declares pursuant to Article 287 of the Convention that the International Court of Justice chooses to settle disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention."

Declaration under Article 298 of the Convention:

" The Government of the Kingdom of Norway declares under Article 298 of the Convention that it does not accept an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII in respect of any of the categories of disputes mentioned in Article 298. '

Oman:

At the time of signing:

" The Government of the Sultanate of Oman understands that the application of the provisions of Articles 19, 25, 34, 38 and 45 of the Convention does not preclude a coastal State from taking the appropriate measures necessary to protect their interests of peace and security. "

Statements made at the time of ratification:

According to the provisions of Article 310 of the Convention and following the previous declaration made by the Sultanate of Oman dated 1 June 1982 in relation to the establishment of straight baselines in any point of the coast line of the Sultanate of Oman, on the lines which enclose the waters within the cove and bays and in the waters between the islands and the coast line, in accordance with Article 2 (c) of Royal Decree No 15/1981 and in the light of the desire of the Sultanate of Oman to align its laws with the provisions of the Convention, the Sultanate of Oman emits the following statements:

Declaration number 1, on the territorial sea:

1. The Sultanate of Oman determines that its territorial sea, in accordance with Article 2 of Royal Decree No 15/1981 of 10 February 1981, extends up to 12 nautical miles towards the sea, measured from the nearest point of the sea. baselines.

2. The Sultanate of Oman exercises full sovereignty over its territorial sea, the space on it and its bed and subsoil, according to the relevant laws and regulations of the Sultanate and in accordance with the provisions of this Convention in relation to the principle of innocent passage.

Declaration number 2 on the passage of warships into the territorial waters of Oman:

The innocent passage of warships by the territorial waters of Oman is guaranteed subject to prior permission. This applies to submarines as well, provided that they sail on the surface and fly the flag of their State of origin.

Declaration number 3 on the passage of nuclear-powered vessels and the like of Oman's territorial waters:

With regard to foreign nuclear-powered vessels and ships carrying nuclear or other substances that are inherently dangerous or harmful to health or the environment, the right of passage is guaranteed. innocent, subject to prior permission, to the types of ships, whether or not they are of war, to which these descriptions correspond. This right is also guaranteed to submarines corresponding to those descriptions, provided that they are navigated on the surface and fly the flag of their State of origin.

Declaration number 4, on the contiguous zone:

The contiguous zone extends over a distance of 12 nautical miles measured from the outer boundary of the territorial waters and the Sultanate of Oman exercises the same prerogatives as set out in the Convention.

Declaration number 5, on the exclusive economic zone:

1. The Sultanate of Oman determines that its exclusive economic zone, in accordance with Article 5 of Royal Decree 15/1981 of 10 February 1981, extends up to 200 nautical miles towards the sea, measured from the baselines from which measures the territorial sea.

2. The Sultanate of Oman has sovereign rights over its exclusive economic zone and also exercises jurisdiction over that area in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. It also declares that, in the exercise of its rights and in the performance of its duties, according to the Convention, in the exclusive economic zone, it shall take due account of the rights and duties of other States and shall act in a manner compatible with the provisions of the Convention.

Declaration number 6, on the continental shelf:

The Sultanate of Oman exercises over its continental shelf sovereign rights in order to explore and exploit its natural resources, as permitted by geographical conditions and in accordance with the Convention.

Declaration number 7, on the procedure chosen for the settlement of disputes in relation to the Convention:

In accordance with Article 287 of the Convention, the Sultanate of Oman declares its acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea, as expressed in Annex VI to the Convention, and jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, with a view to resolving any dispute that may arise between it and any other State in connection with the interpretation or application of the Convention.

Panama:

Statement made at the time of ratification:

Gulf of Panama, Historical Bay:

The Republic of Panama in depositing its Instrument for Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (approved by Law No. 38 of 4 June 1996 and promulgated in the Official Gazette) Number 23.056, of 12 June 1996), declares that it is of its exclusive sovereignty the Gulf of Panama, because of its character of " Panamanian historical bay, whose shores in its integrity belong to the Republic of Panama under a geographical configuration determined, because it is a great choice or bosom located south of the Isthmus of Panama, where marine waters suprayacents to the bed and subsoil of the sea, enclose the area between the geographical latitudes of the 7 or 28 '00' 'North, and the 7 or 31' 00 '' North; and the geographical lengths of the 79 or 59 '53' 'and 78 or 11' 40 '', both to the West of Greenwich; which determine the location of Punta Mala and Punta Jaque, respectively, to the west and east of the entrance to the Gulf of Panama. This great choice penetrates quite a lot on the mainland of the Panamanian isthmus. The width of its entrance, from Punta Mala to the Punta de Jaque is about 200 kilometers and its penetration on dry land (counted from the imaginary line that joins Punta Mala with Punta Jaque to the mouths of the river Chico, east of Panama City) is 165 kilometers.

The Gulf of Panama, historic bay, constitutes for its current and potential resources a vital necessity for the Republic of Panama, both in terms of time immemorial to its security and its defense as in what It concerns the economic sphere, since its marine resources have been very old used by the inhabitants of the Panamanian isthmus.

In the form of oblong, whose coastal environment is approximately one of a calf's head, it presents a coastal perimeter under the maritime domain of Panama, about 668 kilometers. Under this delimitation the Gulf of Panama, historic bay, is of a surface that, approximately, approaches the 30,000 square kilometers.

The Republic of Panama declares that in the exercise of its sovereign and jurisdictional rights and in the performance of its duties, it will act in a manner compatible with the provisions of the Convention, reserving its right to do so other declarations relating to the same, if any.

Philippines (13):

Interpretation made at the time of signature and confirmed at the time of ratification:

" 1. The signing of the Convention by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines shall not prejudice or prejudice in any way the sovereign rights of the Republic of the Philippines in accordance with the Constitution of the Philippines and its derivatives.

2. This signature shall in no way affect the sovereign rights of the Republic of the Philippines as a successor to the United States of America, in accordance with the Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United States of America of 10 December 1898 and with the Treaty of Washington between the United States of America and Great Britain of 2 January 1930, and the derivatives of those Treaties.

3. Such signature shall not diminish or affect in any way the rights and obligations of the Contracting Parties under the Treaty of Mutual Defense between the Philippines and the United States of America of 30 August 1951, and in accordance with their respective interpretative instruments; nor in accordance with any other relevant bilateral or multilateral treaty or agreement in which the Philippines is a party.

4. Such a signature shall not prejudice or prejudice in any way the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines over any territory on which it exercises sovereign authority, such as the Kalayaan Islands and the waters corresponding thereto.

5. The Convention shall not be construed as modifying in any way any relevant presidential laws and decrees or proclamations of the Republic of the Philippines; the Government of the Republic of the Philippines maintains and reserves the right and the faculty or make any modifications to those Laws, Decrees or proclamations according to the provisions of the Philippine Constitution.

6. The provisions of the Convention on the archipelagic passage by sea do not nullify or undermine the sovereignty of the Philippines as an archipelagic State on the sea lanes nor do it deprive it of authority to enact legislation with the aim of protect their sovereignty, independence and security.

7. The concept of archipelagic waters is similar to the concept of inland waters according to the Constitution of the Philippines, and it subtracts the straits that connect those waters with the economic zone or with the high sea of the rights of the foreign vessels to the passage in transit for international navigation.

8. The Agreement of the Republic of the Philippines for the purposes of submission for the peaceful settlement of disputes under Article 298, under any of the procedures provided for in the Convention, shall not be deemed to be a matter of the Philippine sovereignty.

Qatar (11):

At the time of signing:

The State of Qatar declares that its signature of the Convention on the Law of the Sea will not in any way imply the recognition of Israel or any dealings with Israel, nor will it give rise to any of the relations with Israel governed by the Convention or which are a consequence of the application of the provisions of the Convention.

Romania:

Statements made at the time of signing and confirmed at the time of ratification:

" 1. As a country in a disadvantageous geographical location on the shores of a poor sea in living resources, Romania reaffirms the need to develop international cooperation for the exploitation of living resources in economic areas, on the basis of fair and equitable agreements which must ensure that the countries of this category have access to the fishery resources of the economic zones of other regions or sub-regions.

2. The Socialist Republic of Romania reaffirms the right of the coastal States to take measures in order to safeguard their security interests, including the right to adopt national laws and regulations in relation to the passage of ships from foreign war for the territorial sea.

The right to take such measures is fully in accordance with Articles 19 and 25 of the Convention and is also expressed in the event by the President of the United Nations Conference on the Right of the Sea at the plenary meeting of the Conference on 26 April 1982.

3. The Socialist Republic of Romania states that, in accordance with the requirements of equity as set out in Articles 74 and 83 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, uninhabited and non-economic islands may not affect the (a) to the delimitation of the maritime spaces belonging to the main land coasts of the coastal States. "

Russian Federation:

At the time of signing:

1. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that, according to Article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it chooses an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII as the basic means of the solution of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention. Opts for a special arbitral tribunal established in accordance with Annex VIII for the examination of the matters relating to fisheries, protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research and navigation, including pollution caused by ships and by dumping. It recognises the competence of the International Court of Law of the Sea, as provided for in Article 292, in matters relating to the early release of retained vessels and crews.

2. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics states that, in accordance with Article 298 of the Convention, it does not accept the compulsory procedures leading to compulsory decisions for the examination of disputes relating to delimitation. (a) the United Nations Security Council is exercising the functions conferred upon it by the Charter of the United Nations, the disputes concerning military activities or disputes in respect of which the United Nations Security Council is exercising its functions.

Sao Tome and Principe:

At the time of signing:

I. The signing of the Convention by the Government of the Democratic Republic of São Tomé e Príncipe shall not affect or undermine in any way the sovereign rights of the Democratic Republic of São Tomé e Príncipe incorporated into the Constitution of Santo Take and Prince and tell her;

II. The Government of the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe reserves the right to adopt laws and regulations concerning the innocent passage of foreign warships by their territorial sea or their archipelagic waters and to take any other measures aimed at safeguarding their security;

III. The Government of the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe considers that the provisions of the Convention in relation to the archipelagic waters, the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone are compatible with the legislation of the Republic of São Tomé e Príncipe as regards its sovereignty and jurisdiction over the maritime space adjacent to its shores;

IV. The Government of the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe considers that, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, when the same population or populations are located in the area adjacent to the exclusive economic zone, the States fishing for those stocks in the adjacent area are obliged to agree with the coastal State the measures necessary for the conservation of the population or populations of associated species;

V. The Government of the Democratic Republic of São Tomé e Príncipe, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, reserves the right to adopt laws and regulations to ensure the conservation of highly migratory species and to cooperate with the States whose nationals catch these species in order to promote the optimal use of these species.

Saudi Arabia:

Statements:

1. The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia shall not be bound by any domestic legislation of other States or by any declaration made by them upon signing or ratifying the Convention. The Kingdom reserves the right to determine its position with respect to all such legislation and all such declarations at the appropriate time. In particular, the ratification of the Convention by the Kingdom does not imply the recognition of any kind of maritime claims of any State that signs or ratifies the Convention when such claims are contrary to the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and prejudice the rights of the Kingdom's sovereignty and jurisdiction over its maritime areas.

2. The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia shall not be bound by any treaty or international agreement which contains provisions contrary to the Convention on the Law of the Sea and which undermines the rights of sovereignty and jurisdiction of the Kingdom of its maritime areas.

3. The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia considers the application of the provisions of Part IX of the Convention relating to the cooperation of the coastal States of closed or semi-closed seas subject to the acceptance of the Convention for all the States concerned.

4. The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia considers that the provisions of the Convention relating to the application of the transit transit regime for the straits used for international navigation and which connect a part of the the high seas or an exclusive economic zone with another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone are also applicable to the navigation between islands close to those narrow or linked to them, in particular when the sea lanes used for the entry or exit of the strait, as designated by the competent international organisation, are located near those islands.

5. The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia considers that the regime of innocent passage shall not apply to the territorial sea of the Kingdom where there is a route in the direction of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone equally suitable for the purposes of its hydrographic and navigation characteristics.

6. In view of the danger inherent in the passage of nuclear-powered vessels or ships carrying nuclear or other similar substances, in view of the right of the coastal State to limit the passage of such vessels to sea lanes designated by that State in its territorial sea, in accordance with the provisions of Article 22 (2) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, and in view of the requirement for such vessels to carry on board the documents and to observe the measures special precautions for such vessels have been established in international agreements, as provided for in the Article 23 of the Convention, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia shall require such vessels to obtain prior permission for the passage before they enter the territorial sea of the Kingdom until such time as the international agreements referred to have been concluded. in Article 23 and the Kingdom is a party to them. The flag State shall in any case be fully responsible for any losses or damages caused by the innocent passage of its vessels by the territorial sea of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

7. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will enact its own domestic legislation for maritime areas subject to its sovereignty and jurisdiction in order to assert its rights of sovereignty and jurisdiction and to ensure its interests in those areas.

Slovenia:

Statements:

Republic of Slovenia considers that its Part V, the "exclusive economic zone", shall be based on the right to which the States Parties have on the basis of Article 310 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The provisions of Article 70, "Right of States in a Disadvantageous Geographical Situation", are part of the general customary international law.

The Republic of Slovenia is not considered bound by the declarative manifestation on the basis of Article 310 of the Convention made by the former Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia. '

South Africa:

At the time of signing:

" According to the provisions of Article 310 of the Convention, the South African Government declares that the signing of this Convention by South Africa in no way implies the recognition by South Africa of the United Nations Council for Namibia or its competence to act on behalf of South West Africa/Namibia. "

Sudan:

At the time of signing:

Declaration made at the plenary meeting at the end of the 11th Session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, held in Montego Bay, Jamaica, from 6 to 10 December 1982, and repeated at the time of signature:

[1.] In accordance with Article 310 of the Convention, the Sudanese Government shall make the statements it deems necessary in order to clarify its position with regard to the content of certain provisions of the Convention. instrument.

[2.] [The Sudan] wishes to reiterate [the demonstration made by the President of the Conference] at the plenary meeting during the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, on 26 April 1982, in relation to Article 21, in which it refers to the laws and regulations of the coastal State relating to the innocent passage: namely that the withdrawal of the amendment presented at that time by a number of States did not prejudice the right of the coastal States to take all the necessary measures, in particular in order to protect their safety, in accordance with with Article 19, on the meaning of the expression "innocent passage", and with Article 25, on the protection rights of the coastal State.

[3.] The Sudan also wishes to state that, in accordance with its interpretation, the definition of the expression "States in a disadvantageous geographical situation" as referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 70 is applicable to all parts of the the Convention in which this expression appears.

[4.] The fact that [the Sudan] signs this Convention and the Final Act of the Conference does not mean in any way that it recognizes any State to which it has not recognized or with which it does not maintain relations.

Sweden:

At the time of signing:

" As regards the parties to the Convention dealing with the innocent passage through the territorial sea, it is the intention of the Government of Sweden to continue to apply the current regime for the passage of foreign warships and other vessels. (a) State used for non-commercial purposes by the Swedish territorial sea, since that scheme is fully compatible with the Convention.

The Government of Sweden also interprets that the Convention does not affect the rights and duties of a neutral State provided for in the Convention on the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in the Event of Naval Warfare (Convention XIII), adopted at The Hague on 18 October 1907. "

At the time of signing and confirmed at the time of ratification:

" The Government of Sweden interprets that the derogation from the transit procedure for the straits, provided for in Article 35 (c) of the Convention, applies to the Strait between Sweden and Denmark (Öresund), as well as to the Straits. between Sweden and Finland (the Åland Islands). Since in those two straits the passage is regulated in whole or in part by long-standing international conventions, the current legal regime in the two straits will not be modified after the entry into force of the Convention. "

At the time of ratification:

" The Government of the Kingdom of Sweden hereby elects, in accordance with Article 287 of the Convention, the International Court of Justice for the resolution of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention and the Agreement on the implementation of Part XI of the Convention.

The Kingdom of Sweden recalls that, as a member of the European Community, it has transferred powers to certain matters governed by the Convention. A detailed statement on the nature and extent of the powers transferred to the European Community shall be made in due time and in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX to the Convention. '

Tunisia:

Statement 1:

The Republic of Tunisia, on the basis of Resolution 4262 of the Council of the League of Arab States of 31 March 1983, declares that its accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not imply the the recognition and establishment of relations with any State to which the Republic of Tunisia does not recognise or with which it does not maintain relations.

Declaration 2:

The Republic of Tunisia, in accordance with the provisions of Article 311, and in particular paragraph 6 thereof, declares its adherence to the basic principles relating to the common heritage of humanity and also declares that it does not will be party to no deal contrary to

that principle. The Republic of Tunisia appeals to all States to avoid any unilateral measures or legislation of that kind which may result in the failure to comply with the provisions of the Convention or the exploitation of the resources of the marine funds or ocean and subsoil without complying with the legal regime of the seas and oceans established in this Convention and in the other legal instruments corresponding thereto, in particular Resolutions I and II.

Declaration 3:

The Republic of Tunisia, in accordance with the provisions of Article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, declares that it does not accept the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of that Convention. Convention regarding the following categories of disputes:

(a) (i) disputes relating to the interpretation or application of Articles 15, 74 and 83 concerning the delimitation of sea areas, or those relating to bays or historic titles, provided that the State which is has made such a declaration, where such a dispute arises after the entry into force of this Convention and no agreement is reached within a reasonable period in negotiations between the Parties, accepts, at the request of the any party to the dispute, that the question be submitted to the conciliation procedure provided for in Section 2 of Annex V shall also be excluded from such submission any dispute which necessarily involves the concurrent examination of an unresolved dispute with respect to sovereignty or other rights on a continental or island territory;

(ii) once the Conciliation Committee has submitted its report, setting out the reasons on which it is based, the Parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not lead to an agreement, the Parties, unless otherwise agreed, shall, by mutual consent, subject the matter to the procedures provided for in Section 2;

(iii) the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to any dispute concerning the delimitation of sea areas which has already been resolved by agreement between the Parties, or to any such dispute as be resolved in accordance with a binding bilateral or multilateral agreement for the Parties;

(b) disputes relating to military activities, including military activities of ships and aircraft of the State engaged in non-commercial services, and disputes relating to activities to enforce legal rules in respect of the exercise of sovereign rights or of jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal in accordance with paragraphs 2 or 3 of Article 297;

(c) disputes in respect of which the United Nations Security Council exercises the functions conferred upon it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to withdraw the matter from its order. of the day or ask the Parties to solve it by the means provided for in this Convention.

Statement 4:

The Republic of Tunisia, in accordance with the provisions of Article 310 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, states that its legislation currently in force does not preclude the provisions of the Convention. However, laws and regulations will be adopted as soon as possible in order to ensure greater harmony between the provisions of the Convention and the requirements to complete Tunisian legislation in the maritime sphere.

Ukraine:

At the time of signing:

1. The Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine declares that, in accordance with Article 287 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it chooses as the principal means of resolving disputes concerning interpretation or application of this Convention an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII. For the examination of questions relating to fisheries, protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research and navigation, including pollution caused by ships and by dumping, the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine chooses a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII. The Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine recognises, in accordance with Article 292, the competence of the International Court of Law of the Sea in respect of matters relating to the early release of retained vessels or their crews.

2. The Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine declares, in accordance with Article 298 of the Convention, that it does not accept the mandatory procedures leading to compulsory decisions for the examination of disputes relating to the delimitation of the (a) the United Nations Security Council exercises the functions conferred upon it by the Charter of the United Nations, the disputes concerning military activities and disputes in respect of which the United Nations Security Council exercises the functions conferred upon it by the Charter of the United Nations.

United Republic of Tanzania:

"The United Republic of Tanzania declares that it chooses the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention."

Uruguay:

Statements made at the time of signing and confimed in the time of ratification:

A) The provisions of the Convention relating to the Territorial Sea and the exclusive economic zone are compatible with the essential purposes and foundations which inspire the legislation of Uruguay concerning its sovereignty and jurisdiction over the sea adjacent to its shores and on its bed and subsoil up to the limit of 200 miles.

B) The legal nature of the exclusive economic zone as defined by the Convention and the extent of the rights it recognises to the coastal state leave no doubt that this is a 'sui generis' area of national jurisdiction other than the territorial sea and which is not part of the high seas.

C) The regulation of uses or activities not expressly provided for in the Convention (rights and residual powers) that relate to the rights of sovereignty and the jurisdiction of the coastal State in its economic zone This regulation does not prevent the enjoyment of internationally recognized freedoms of communication to the other states.

(D) In the exclusive economic zone, the enjoyment of international communication freedoms, in accordance with its definition and with other relevant provisions of the Convention, excludes any non-peaceful uses without consent of the coastal State such as arms exercises or other activities which may affect the rights or interests of that State, and also excludes the threat or use of force against territorial integrity, independence policy, peace or security of the coastal state.

E) This Convention does not empower any state to construct, operate or use facilities or structures in the exclusive economic zone of another State, be it those provided for in the Convention, such as any other nature, without the consent of the coastal State.

F) In accordance with all relevant provisions of the Convention, where both the exclusive economic zone and an area beyond and adjacent to it, the same population or populations of species are found States that fish in those populations in the adjacent area have a duty to agree with the coastal State the measures necessary for the conservation of such populations or associated species.

(G) When the Convention enters into force, Uruguay shall apply to other States parties the provisions laid down by the Convention and its national law, on the basis of reciprocity.

(H) In accordance with Article 287, Uruguay declares that it chooses the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention which does not are subject to other procedures, without prejudice to the recognition of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, and to agreements with other States providing for other means of peaceful settlement.

I) In accordance with the provisions of Article 298, Uruguay declares that it will not accept the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention for disputes concerning activities aimed at comply with the legal rules with respect to the exercise of the rights of sovereignty or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a Court or Court in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 297.

J) Reaffirms that, as defined in Article 76, the continental shelf constitutes the natural extension of the territory of the coastal State to the outer edge of the continental margin.

Viet Nam:

Statements:

The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, in ratifying the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, expresses its determination to join the international community in establishing a legal order. (i) fair and in the promotion of maritime development and cooperation.

The National Assembly reaffirms the sovereignty of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam over its inland waters and territorial sea; sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the contiguous zone, in the exclusive economic zone and in the The Committee of the European Right, on the basis of the provisions of the Convention and the principles of international law, calls on other countries to respect the rights of Viet Nam.

The National Assembly reiterates the sovereignty of Viet Nam over the archipelagos of Hoang Sa and Truong Sa and its position to resolve disputes concerning territorial claims as well as other disputes in the East Sea. through peaceful negotiations in a spirit of equality, mutual respect and understanding, and in due respect for international law, in particular the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, and sovereignty and jurisdiction of the coastal States on their continental platforms and areas The Parties should, at the same time as they make active efforts to promote negotiations with a view to a fundamental and long-term solution, maintain stability on the basis of the "status quo", and refrain from any act that may further complicate the situation and the use or threat of force.

National Assembly insists that it is necessary to differentiate between the solution of the controversy over the archipelagos in Hoang Sa and Truong Sa and the defense of the continental shelf and the sea areas that are under the sovereignty, rights and jurisdiction of Viet Nam, on the basis of the principles and rules laid down in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The National Assembly empowers the Standing Committee of the National Assembly and the Government to examine all relevant national legislation in order to study the necessary modifications in accordance with the Convention of the The United Nations on the Law of the Sea of 1982 and to safeguard the interests of Viet Nam.

The National Assembly authorizes the government to take effective measures aimed at the management and defense of the continental shelf and the maritime zones of Viet Nam.

June 7, 1996

1. The establishment by the People's Republic of China of the territorial baselines of the Hoang Sa archipelago (Paracel), part of the territory of Viet Nam, constitutes a serious violation of Vietnamese sovereignty over the archipelago. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam has on many occasions reaffirmed its indisputable sovereignty over the archipelagos of Hoang Sa and Tuong Sa (Spratly). The aforementioned act of the People's Republic of China, which is contrary to international law, is absolutely null and void. In addition, the People's Republic of China infringed the provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in a similar way by providing the Hoang Sa archipelago with the status of an archipelagic State for the purpose of illegally annex a large sea area to the so-called inland waters of the archipelago.

2. By drawing the baseline in the eastern segment of the Leehou Peninsula, from point 31 to point 32, the People's Republic of China has also failed to comply with the provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Articles 7 and 38. As a result, the People's Republic of China has, in its territorial waters, converted a considerable maritime area into its territorial waters, which is an obstacle to international rights and freedom of navigation, including those of Vietnam. Nam, across the Qiongzhou Strait. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam considers this fact totally unacceptable.

Yemen (7, 11):

1. The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen shall give preference to its existing national laws which require prior permission for the entry or transit of foreign warships or submarines or nuclear-powered vessels or carrying them radioactive materials.

2. With regard to the delimitation of the maritime borders between the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen and any State whose coasts are adjacent to or located opposite, the average line adopted shall be drawn in such a way as to that each point of it is equidistant from the nearest points of the baselines from which the width of the territorial sea of any State is measured. This will apply to the maritime boundaries of the continental territory of the Democratic Republic of Yemen and also of its islands.

Yugoslavia:

" 1. On the basis of the right of States Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the basis of Article 310, the Government of the Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia considers that a coastal State may, by means of its laws and regulations, to condition the passage of foreign warships to the requirement of prior notification to the respective coastal State and to limit the number of ships passing simultaneously on the basis of international law customary and in accordance with the right of innocent passage (Articles 17-32 of the Convention).

2. The Government of the Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia also considers that it may, on the basis of Article 28 (1) and Article 45 (1) (a) of the Convention, determine in its laws and regulations which of the used for international navigation in the territorial sea of the Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia shall keep the regime of innocent passage, as appropriate.

3. Since the provisions of the Convention relating to the contiguous zone (Article 33) do not lay down rules on the delimitation of the contiguous zone between States with adjacent or opposite coasts, the Government of the Republic of Federal Socialist Yugoslavia considers that the principles of customary international law, codified in paragraph 3 of Article 24 of the Convention on Territorial Sea and the Contigua Zone, signed in Geneva on April 29, 1958, shall be applicable to the delimitation of the contiguous zone between the Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea "

Objections (unless otherwise stated, objections were received at the time of ratification, formal confirmation, accession or succession).

Australia (14):

August 3, 1988

" Australia considers that [the] declaration made by the Republic of the Philippines is not compatible with Article 309 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, which prohibits the formulation of reserves, nor with Article 310 which permits statements "provided that such statements or statements are not intended to exclude or modify the legal effects of the provisions of the Convention in their application to that State".

In the statement of the Republic of the Philippines it is stated that the Convention will not affect the sovereign rights of the Philippines under its Constitution, its domestic law and any treaties in which the Philippines is a party. This indicates, in fact, that the Philippines is not obliged to harmonise its right to the provisions of the Convention. In making that statement, the Philippines is trying to modify the legal effects of the provisions of the Convention.

This opinion is based on the specific reference made in the declaration to the condition of the archipelagic waters. The declaration states that the concept of archipelagic waters contained in the Convention is similar to the concept of inland waters contained in the previous Constitutions of the Philippines and recently reaffirmed in Article 1 of the new Convention. Constitution of the Philippines of 1987. It is clear, however, that the Convention distinguishes the two concepts and that the archipelagic waters are subject to different obligations and rights than to inland waters. In particular, the Convention provides for the exercise by foreign vessels of the rights of innocent passage and passing through the archipelagic sea lanes in the archipelagic waters.

Therefore, Australia cannot accept that the Philippines ' demonstration has any legal or other effect when the Convention enters into force and considers that the provisions of the Convention should be observed without condition them to the restrictions contained in the declaration of the Republic of the Philippines. '

Belarus:

June 24, 1985

The Soviet Socialist Republic of Belarus considers that the demonstration by the Government of the Philippines at the time of the signing of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, subsequently confirmed in the the moment of ratification of the Convention, it contains in essence reservations and exceptions to that Convention, contrary to the provisions of the Article 309 of the Convention. The manifestation of the Government of the Philippines is also incompatible with Article 310 of the Convention, according to which statements or statements made by a State when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention are admissible only 'provided that such statements or statements are not intended to exclude or amend the legal effects of the provisions of the Convention in their application to that State'.

The Government of the Philippines, at its demonstration, repeatedly insists on its intention to continue to govern in oceanic matters, not by the Convention or the obligations imposed by it, but by its national laws and by the previously agreed agreements, which are not in conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Philippine Party therefore declines to harmonise its national legislation with the provisions of the Convention and does not fulfil one of the fundamental obligations under the Convention: to abide by the regime of the archipelagic waters, which provides for the right of foreign vessels and aircraft to pass through those archipelagic waters or above them.

For the above reasons, the Soviet Socialist Republic of Belarus cannot recognize the validity of the demonstration by the Government of the Philippines and considers that it has no legal force in the light of the provisions of the Convention.

The Soviet Socialist Republic of Belarus believes that if similar demonstrations that were also made by some other States when signing the Convention and are incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, return to The result could be to undermine the object and importance of the Convention and to undermine this important instrument of international law.

In view of the above, the Permanent Mission of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Belarus to the United Nations believes it would be appropriate for the Secretary-General of the United Nations to carry out, in accordance with Article 319 (2) (a) of the Convention, a general study on the universal application of the provisions of the Convention and, inter alia, on the question of the harmonisation of national laws of the States Parties with the Convention. The conclusions of this study would be incorporated in the Secretary-General's report to the General Assembly at its 40th session at the agenda item entitled "Law of the Sea".

Bulgaria:

September 17, 1985

" The People's Republic of Bulgaria is seriously concerned by the actions of a number of States which, at the time of signing or ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, have done reserves which oppose the same Convention or have enacted national legislation which excludes or modifies the legal effects of the provisions of the Convention in its application to those States. Such actions contravene Article 310 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and disagree with the rules of customary international law and explicitly provided for in Article 18 of the Vienna Convention. on the law of the Treaties.

This trend undermines the meaning and meaning of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, which establishes a universal and uniform regime for the use of the oceans and the seas and their resources. In the verbal note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of Bulgaria to the Embassy of the Philippines in Belgrade, "..." the Bulgarian Government rejected as devoid of legal effect the demonstration made by the Philippines at the time of the signature, and confirmed at the time of the ratification of the Convention.

The People's Republic of Bulgaria will also in future oppose any attempt to unilaterally modify the legal regime established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. "

Czech Republic (4).

Ethiopia:

November 8, 1984

" Paragraph 3 of the declaration refers to claims of sovereignty over unspecified islands of the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean which is clearly outside the scope of the Convention. Although the declaration, which does not constitute a reservation since that is prohibited by Article 309 of the Convention, is made in accordance with Article 310 of the Convention and as such is not governed by Articles 19-23 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, which provides for the acceptance of reservations and the objection to them, however, the Provisional Military Government of Ethiopia Socialist wishes to state that paragraph 3 of the declaration made by the Arab Republic of Yemen does not can affect in any way the sovereignty of Ethiopia over all the islands of the Red Sea which are part of its national territory. '

Israel:

December 11, 1984

" The concerns of the Government of Israel regarding the right of the sea mainly concern to ensure maximum freedom of navigation and flyover anywhere and in particular through the straits used for international navigation.

In this regard, the Government of Israel is demonstrating that the regime of navigation and overflight, confirmed by the Treaty of Peace between Israel and Egypt of 1979, in which the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba are considered by the Parties as international sea lanes open to all nations for freedom of navigation and overflight without impediment or possibility of suspension, is applicable to such zones. In addition, being fully compatible with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the regime of the Peace Treaty will continue to prevail and apply to those areas.

The Government of Israel interprets that the declaration of the Arab Republic of Egypt in this regard, at the time of its ratification of [the said] Convention, is in line with the statement cited [made by Egypt]. "

Italy:

November 24, 1995

Regarding the statement made by India at the time of the ratification, as well as similar statements made previously by Brazil, Cape Verde and Uruguay:

"Italy wishes to reiterate the statement it made at the time of the signing and confirmed at the time of the ratification that" the rights of the coastal State in that zone do not exclude the right to obtain notification of the military exercises or exercises or to authorize them. " According to the declaration made by Italy at the time of ratification, this declaration serves as a response to all past and future declarations made by other States in relation to the matters to which it refers. "

Russian Federation:

February 25, 1985

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics considers the demonstration by the Philippines at the time of the signing, and confirmed later at the time of the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea contains, in essence, reservations and exceptions to the Convention which are prohibited under Article 309 of the Convention. At the same time, the manifestation of the Philippines is incompatible with Article 310 of the Convention, according to which a State, when signing or ratifying the Convention, may make statements or statements only " whenever such declarations or Demonstrations are not intended to exclude or amend the legal effects of the provisions of the Convention in their application to that State. "

The discrepancy between the Philippine demonstration and the Convention can be seen, among other things, in the statement by the Philippines that "the concept of archipelagic waters is similar to the concept of inland waters according to the Constitution." of the Philippines, and it subtracts the straits that connect those waters with the economic zone or with the high sea of the rights of the foreign ships to the passage in transit for the international navigation ". In addition, the event emphasises more than once that, despite its ratification of the Convention, the Philippines will continue to be guided in matters relating to the sea, not by the Convention and the obligations imposed by it, but by its right of and for agreements which have already concluded that they are not in line with the Convention. Thus the Philippines is not only circumventing the harmonisation of its legislation with the Convention, but it is also refusing to fulfil one of its fundamental obligations under the Convention, namely to respect the regime of the archipelagic waters, in the that foreign vessels are provided with the right of archipelagic passage for such waters and foreign aircraft of the right to fly over them.

In view of the above, the USSR cannot acknowledge the lawfulness of the Philippines ' demonstration and considers that it lacks legal effects in light of the provisions of the Convention.

The Soviet Union is also deeply concerned by the fact that, at the time of the signing of the Convention, a number of other States have also made similar manifestations contrary to the Convention. If such demonstrations are also made later, in the ratification or accession phase of the Convention, the meaning and meaning of the Convention, which establishes a universal and uniform regime for the use of the oceans and the the seas and their resources, and this important instrument of international law would be undermined.

Taking into account the manifestation of the Philippines and the manifestations made by a number of other countries when signing the Convention, along with the demonstrations that may be held later at the time of ratification and The Permanent Mission of the USSR considers that it would be appropriate for the Secretary-General of the United Nations to carry out, in accordance with paragraph 2 (a) of Article 319, a general study on the the problem of ensuring the universal application of the provisions of the Convention, including question of the harmonisation of the national legislation of the States with the Convention. The results of this study should be included in the Secretary-General's report to the United Nations General Assembly at its 40th session on the agenda item entitled "Law of the Sea".

Slovakia (4).

Ukraine:

July 8, 1985

The Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine believes that the demonstration by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines in signing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which was subsequently confirmed in the the time of ratification of the Convention contains elements which are incompatible with Articles 309 and 310 of the Convention. In accordance with these Articles, the statements made by a State at the time of signature, ratification or accession shall not be intended to " exclude or modify the legal effects of the provisions of the Convention in its (Article 310). These exceptions or reservations are not legitimate "except those expressly authorized by other articles of the Convention" (Article 309). Article 310 also insists that the manifestations may be (a) to ensure that, among other things, it harmonise its internal law with the provisions of the Convention. "

However, the manifestation of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines not only provides no proof of the intention to harmonize the laws of the Republic of the Philippines with the Convention, but, on the contrary, it has the purpose, according to In particular, it gives a particular understanding in paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of the event, to grant precedence over the Convention to domestic law and to international agreements in which the Republic of the Philippines is a party. For example, this applies, inter alia, to the Treaty of Mutual Defence between the Philippines and the United States of America of 30 August 1951.

Also, paragraph 5 of the demonstration not only gives priority to the Convention to the relevant laws of the Republic of the Philippines that are currently in force, but also reserves the right to amend those laws. laws in the future only under the Constitution of the Philippines and, consequently, without harmonizing them with the provisions of the Convention. Paragraph 7 of the event draws an analogy between the inland waters of the Republic of the Philippines and the archipelagic waters and contains a reservation which is inadmissible in the light of Article 309 of the Convention and which deprives ships of the foreign transit rights for international shipping through the straits connecting the archipelagic waters to the economic zone or the high seas. This reservation is proof of the intention not to comply with the obligation imposed by the Convention on the Parties to comply with the regime of the archipelagic and transit waters and to respect the rights of other States with respect to the international navigation and flyover by aircraft. Failure to comply with this obligation would seriously undermine the effectiveness and meaning of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

It follows that the demonstration by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines is intended to provide for unjustified derogations for that State and to modify in fact the legal effects of the provisions of the Convention in its application to it. In view of this, the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine cannot consider that [the said] demonstration has legal force. Demonstrations of this kind can only be described as harmful to the unified international legal regime of the seas and oceans being established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the European Union. of the Sea

In the opinion of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine, the harmonisation of national laws with the Convention would be facilitated by an examination carried out within the framework of the United Nations Secretariat on the implementation of the Convention. uniform and universal Convention and the drawing up of an appropriate study by the Secretary-General.

List of appointed conciliators and arbitrators for the purpose of constituting a conciliation committee, in accordance with Article 2 of Annexes V and VII to the Convention

The

Repository Date

notification in power

from the Secretary-General/Participant/Designation

Sudan. /Sayed/Shawgi Hussain, Referee.

Mr. Ahmed Elmufti, Referee.

Mr. Abd Elrahman Elkhalifa, Conciliator.

Saye/Elathir Hamadalla, Conciliator. /8-9-1995

Germany. /Mrs Renate Platzoeder, Referee. /253-1996

Czech Republic. /Mr. Vladimir Kopal, Conciliator and Referee. /18-12-1996

The following statements were made in relation to the Final Act:

Algeria: [See Declaration under the Convention].

Ecuador:

On April 30, 1982, in New York, the Convention on the Law of the Sea was adopted by vote. On that occasion, the delegation of Ecuador made an official declaration stating its decision not to participate in the vote and in which it stated, for the reasons for this decision to be recorded. [The delegation also wishes] to recall the official statements made by the Ecuadorian delegation, in particular in the tenth and eleventh sessions of the Conference, in which the position of Ecuador was clearly stated.

The recognition of the exclusive rights of sovereignty and jurisdiction over all living and non-living resources found in the adjacent seas up to a distance of 200 miles, and their corresponding beds, constitutes a victory of the coastal states, a victory that began with the prophetic Declaration of Santiago, 1952. The territorialist group, coordinated permanently by the Ecuadorian delegation, has played an important role in this achievement.

On this occasion, [the Ecuadorian delegation] must be aware that, despite the important progress made in the negotiations carried out during the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the At sea, and despite the fact that the Convention establishes principles and fundamental rights of the developing coastal states and the international community in general, the Convention which today opens to the signature by the States does not satisfy The rights and interests of Ecuador. Ecuador has always exercised these rights, and will continue to exercise them, in accordance with its national legislation. This legislation was drawn up without breaking any rule or principle of international law, long before any of the three Conferences held under the auspices of the United Nations were convened.

At the time of the signing of the Final Act, and notwithstanding the progress made in the Law of the Sea, [the Ecuadorian delegation] wishes to reiterate its position in defense of its territorial sea of 200 miles.

Israel:

" This signature of this Final Act does not in any way imply any kind of recognition of the group calling itself the Palestine Liberation Organization, nor of any rights granted to that group in the framework of the of any of the documents attached to this Final Act, and is subject to the statements of the Delegation of Israel at meetings 163.a, 182.a, 184.a and 190.a of the Conference and document A/CONF.62/WS/33. "

Sudan: [See declaration number (4) under the Convention].

Venezuela:

Venezuela signs to the Final Act, well understood that it is limiting itself to take note of the work of the Conference, without making any judgment of value on its results. Its signature does not imply, nor can it be interpreted as implying any change in its position on Articles 15, 74, 83 and 121, paragraph 3 of the Convention. For the reasons set out by the delegation of Venezuela at the plenary session of 30 April 1982, the above provisions are unacceptable to Venezuela, which is therefore not bound by them and is not prepared to accept it in any way. any such linkage.

(3) The German Democratic Republic signed the Convention on 10 December 1982, with the following statements:

[1] " The German Democratic Republic declares that it accepts the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal within the meaning of paragraph (1) (c) of Article 287, which shall be established in accordance with Annex VII, for the solution of the disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be addressed by the Member States by recourse to other peaceful means of settling disputes agreed between them.

The German Democratic Republic further declares that it accepts the jurisdiction of a special arbitral tribunal within the meaning of Article 287 (1) (d), which must be established in accordance with Annex VIII, for the solution of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Articles of this Convention relating to fisheries, the protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research and navigation, including the pollution caused by ships and by dumping.

The German Democratic Republic recognises the competence, provided for in Article 292 of the Convention, of the International Court of Law of the Sea on issues relating to the early release of a ship and its crew.

The German Democratic Republic declares, in accordance with Article 298 of the Convention, that it does not accept any mandatory procedure leading to mandatory decisions:

in disputes concerning the delimitation of sea areas;

in disputes regarding military activities; and

in disputes in respect of which the United Nations Security Council exercises the functions conferred upon it by the Charter of the United Nations. "

[2] " The German Democratic Republic reserves the right, in connection with the ratification of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, to formulate declarations and manifestations in accordance with Article 310 of the Convention and to set out their views on the statements and statements made by other States at the time of signature, ratification or accession to the Convention. "

See also note 13 to Chapter I. 2.

(4) Czechoslovakia signed the Convention on 10 December 1982. On 29 May 1985 the Secretary-General received the following objection from the Government of Czechoslovakia:

" [The Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia] wishes to draw the attention of the Secretary-General to the concern of the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia with regard to the fact that certain States, at the time of signing of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, have made declarations which are incompatible with the Convention and which, if confirmed at the time of the ratification of the Convention by those States, will constitute a breach of the obligations which they themselves must assume under the Convention. Such an approach would lead to the violation of the universal nature of the obligations laid down in the Convention, to the disturbance of the legal regime established in the Convention and even, in the long term, to the weakening of the Convention itself.

A concrete example of the type of declaration referred to above is the interpretation by the Philippines at the time of signature and confirmed at the time of the ratification of the Convention, which was communicated to the Member States by notification [...] dated 22 May 1984.

The Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia considers this interpretation of the Philippines:

is incompatible with Article 309 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea given that it contains, in essence, reservations to the provisions of the Convention;

contravenes Article 310 of the Convention, in which it is established that States may make declarations at the time of signature or ratification or accession to the Convention as long as they " do not have the object to exclude or modify the legal effects of the provisions of the Convention "

indicates that, despite having ratified the Convention, the Philippines intends to abide by its national law and the agreements entered into by it in advance, rather than the obligations imposed on it by the Convention, not only without regard to whether such laws and agreements are in harmony with the Convention, but even, as shown in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Philippines ' interpretation, deliberately contravening the obligations laid down in that Convention.

In view of the above circumstances, the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia cannot recognize any legal effect on the interpretation of the Philippines mentioned above.

Given the importance of this issue, the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia considers it necessary for the Secretary-General, as a depositary of the Convention, to deal with the problem of declarations of this nature. made at the time of signature or ratification of the Convention, which endanger the universal character of the Convention and its unified application, and which is to be reported to the Member States of the United Nations. "

See also note 11 to Chapter I. 2.

(5) See Note 24 to Chapter I. 2.

(6) For the Kingdom in Europe.

(7) The Arab Republic of Yemen signed the Convention on 10 December 1982, with the following statements:

1. The Arab Republic of Yemen adheres to the rules of general international law relating to the rights of national sovereignty over coastal territorial waters, including in the case of the waters of a strait which is a two seas.

2. The Arab Republic of Yemen adheres to the concept of general international law on the freedom of passage which it considers to apply exclusively to merchant ships and aircraft; nuclear propulsion ships, as well as ships and war aircraft in general, shall obtain the prior agreement of the Arab Republic of Yemen before passing through its territorial waters, in accordance with the established rule of general international law on national sovereignty.

3. The Arab Republic of Yemen confirms its national sovereignty over all the islands of the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean that have been under its rule since the period when Yemen and the Arab countries were subjected to the Turkish administration.

4. The Arab Republic of Yemen declares that its signature of the Convention of the Law of the Sea is subject to the provisions of this declaration and to the completion of the constitutional procedures in force.

The fact that Yemen has signed the Convention does not in any way mean that it recognizes Israel or intends to enter into relations with Israel.

See also note 32 to Chapter I. 2.

(8) In this regard, on 7 June 1996, the Secretary-General received the following statement from the Government of Viet Nam:

1. The establishment by the People's Republic of China of the territorial baselines of the Hoan Sa archipelago (Paracel), part of the territory of Viet Nam, constitutes a serious violation of Vietnamese sovereignty over the archipelago. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam has repeatedly reaffirmed its indisputable sovereignty over the archipelagos of Hoang Sa and Truong Sa (Spratly). The aforementioned act of the People's Republic of China, which is contrary to international law, is absolutely null and void. In addition, the People's Republic of China has similarly infringed the provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by providing the Hoang Sa archipelago with the status of an archipelagic State for the purpose of illegally annex a large sea area to the so-called inland waters of the archipelago.

2. By drawing the baseline in the eastern segment of the Leizhou Peninsula, from point 31 to point 32, the People's Republic of China has also failed to comply with the provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in particular Articles 7 and 38 thereof. As a result, the People's Republic of China has made a considerable maritime area part of its inland waters, which is an obstacle to international rights and freedom of navigation, including those of Vietnam. Nam, across the Qiongzhou Strait. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam considers this fact totally unacceptable.

(9) The modification of the event (previously the following wording: "A special ... article VIII") was made on the basis of a communication received from the Government of Germany on 29 May 1996.

At the time of depositing its instrument of ratification, the Government of the Czech Republic made the following statement:

" The Government of the Czech Republic, having examined the declaration of the Federal Republic of Germany of 14 October 1994 concerning the interpretation of the provisions of Part X of the [cited Convention], which it makes reference to the right of access to the sea and from the sea to landlocked states and to freedom of transit, states that [the said] declaration by the Federal Republic of Germany cannot be interpreted in respect of the Czech Republic in contradiction with the provisions of Part X of the Convention. '

(10) On 21 December 1995, the Secretary-General received the following communication from the Government of Turkey:

" 1. The signing and ratification of the Convention by Greece and the subsequent declaration in this regard will not undermine or affect the existing rights or the legitimate interests of Turkey in respect of the areas of maritime jurisdiction of the Aegean. Turkey fully reserves its rights under international law.

Turkey wishes to state that it will not consent to any claims or attempts to alter the already old "status quo" in this regard, and to deprive Turkey of its current rights and interests. Any unilateral act, as far as this is concerned, which would constitute an abuse of the obligations of the Convention, would have totally unacceptable consequences. Turkey has been active and persistent in its opposition in this regard from the outset.

2. In view of the interpretative manifestation of Greece with regard to the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the 'straits used for international navigation', Turkey wishes to reiterate its statement of 15 November 1982, contained in document A/CONF.62/WS/34, which is still fully valid today and which is worded as follows:

" With regard to the views expressed by the Greek delegation in the written statement contained in document A/CONF.62/WS/26 of May 1982, the delegation of Turkey wishes to hold the following demonstration:

The scope of the regime relating to the straits used for international navigation, and the rights and duties of the coastal States of such straits, are clearly expressed in the provisions contained in the III of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. With the limited exceptions provided for in Articles 35, 36, 38, paragraph 1, and 45, all the straits used for international navigation are subject to the transit transit procedure.

In the written statement mentioned above, Greece tries to create a separate category of straits, namely 'scattered islands that form a large number of alternative straits', which is not foreseen in the Convention or in international law. In this way, Greece wishes to reserve the power to exclude some of the narrow seas linking the Aegean Sea to the Mediterranean Sea of the transit transit system. This arbitrary action is not admissible under the Convention or the rules and principles of international law.

Apparently Greece, having failed in its attempts at the Conference to ensure the application of the regime of archipelagic states to the islands of the continental states, is now proposing to circumvent the provisions of the Convention by means of a unilateral and arbitrary interpretative manifestation.

The reference in Greece's written expression to Article 36 is particularly worrying, as it shows a sign of Greece's intention to exercise discretionary powers, not only on the narrow but also on the the high seas.

With regard to the air routes, the demonstration by Greece is contrary to the rules of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), according to which these routes are established by the regional meetings of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). ICAO, with the consent of all stakeholders, and approved by the ICAO Council.

In the light of the above considerations, the Turkish delegation considers that the views of Greece expressed in document A/CONF.62/WS/ 26 do not

have legal basis and are totally unacceptable. "

3. Turkey reserves the right to make any subsequent declarations which are necessary in the light of future circumstances. "

(11) In a communication received on 23 May 1983, the Government of Israel stated the following:

" The Government of the State of Israel has noted that the statements made by Iraq and Yemen at the time of the signing of the Convention contain explicit political statements regarding Israel.

In the opinion of the Government of the State of Israel, this Convention is not the appropriate framework for formulating such public pronouncements.

In addition, the Government of the State of Israel raises an objection to all reservations, statements and manifestations of a political nature with respect to the States, made on the occasion of the signing of the Final Act of the Convention, which are incompatible with the aims and objectives of that Convention.

Such reservations, statements and statements may not in any way affect any obligations that are binding on the States above under international law or conventions. particular.

The Government of the State of Israel shall adopt towards the governments of the States concerned, as far as the substance of the matter is concerned, an attitude of total reciprocity. "

Later, the Secretary-General received similar communications from the Government of Israel regarding:

on April 10, 1985, ref.: Qatar Declaration;

August 15, 1986, ref.: Interpretation of Kuwait.

(12) On 22 February 1994, the Secretary-General received the following communication from the Government of Tunisia with reference to the Declaration on Articles 74 and 83 of the Convention:

... In that declaration, Articles 74 and 83 of the Convention are interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of any agreement on the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf and other maritime areas, the search for a solution equitably presupposes that the limit is the average line, in other words, a line whose points are all equidistant from the nearest points of the baselines from which the width of the territorial waters is measured.

The Government of Tunisia believes that such an interpretation is not in any way compatible with the spirit and letter of the provisions of those articles, in which the automatic application of the average line is not foreseen with respect to the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf.

(13) On June 12, 1985, the Secretary-General received the following communication from the Chinese Government:

" The so-called Kalayaan Islands are part of the Nanshan Islands, which have always been Chinese territory. The Chinese Government has stated on numerous occasions that China has indisputable sovereignty over the Nanshan Islands and the waters and adjacent resources. " On 23 February 1987, the Secretary-General received the following communication from the Government of Viet Nam on the statements made by the Philippines and by China:

... The Republic of the Philippines, at the time of signature and ratification of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, has claimed sovereignty over the islands called Kalaysan by the Philippines [see paragraph 4 of the Declaration]. The People's Republic of China has also claimed that the islands, called Kalaysan by the Philippines, are part of the Nanshan Islands, which are Chinese territory. The so-called "Kalaysan Islands" or "Nanshan Islands", which are mentioned above, are in fact the Truong Sa archipelago which has always been under the sovereignty of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam has so far published two white papers confirming the legality of its sovereignty over the archipelagos Houang Sa and Truong Sa.

The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam once again reaffirms its indisputable sovereignty over the Truong Sa archipelago and, consequently, its determination to defend its territorial integrity.

(14) In relation to the objection raised by Australia, the Secretary-General received the following statement from the Government of the Philippines on 26 October 1988:

" The declaration of the Philippines was made in accordance with Article 310 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The declaration consists of interpretative manifestations relating to certain provisions of the Convention.

The Philippine government intends to harmonise its domestic legislation with the provisions of the Convention.

The necessary measures are being taken to enact legislation regulating the passage through the archipelagic sea lanes and the exercise of the Philippine sovereignty rights over the archipelagic waters, according to the Convention.

The Philippine Government, therefore, wishes to assure the Australian Government and the States Parties to the Convention that the Philippines will abide by the provisions of the said Convention. "

Agreement on the implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the De recho del Mar of 10 December 1982. New York, 28 July 1994. 'Official Journal of the State' of 13 February 1997.

Warning of failure to insert the instrument of ratification of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, made in New York on 28 July 1994 (published in the "Official State Gazette" number 38, 13 February 1997) page 4831, left column, where it says: "Instrument for ratification of Part XI ..."; it should read: "Instrument for ratification of the Agreement on the implementation of Part XI".

Page 4839, right column, States Party (date deposit instrument), where it says: "Spain 15 -1-1996 R"; must say: "Spain 15 -1-1997 R".

Statements and Reservations

Statements (unless otherwise stated, the statements were made at the time of the provisional application notification, ratification, formal confirmation, accession, signature or final participation):

Austria:

At the time of signing:

Statement:

" Austria declares that it understands that the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 7 mean, in relation to its own position, that pending the parliamentary approval of the Convention and the Agreement, as well as its subsequent ratification, Austria shall have access to the organs of the International Marine Fund Authority. "

Belgium:

At the time of signing:

Statement:

This firm also forces the Flemish Region, the Walloon Region and the Capital Region, Brussels.

Russian Federation:

Statement:

According to the opinion of the experts, the industrial exploitation of the mineral resources of deep sea funds will not begin until about ten or fifteen years. The international body of the marine funds will therefore not have an effective activity to do for a considerable period of time; this fact highlights in particular the financial aspects of the activities of the organization which has just been created. It is important to avoid administrative and other non-productive expenditure, to refrain from creating unnecessary structures and charges, and to strictly observe the agreements relating to the economic regime reflected in the Agreement.

The efforts to grant the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea a universal character will only produce a positive result in the long term if all States act in accordance with the agreements. mentioned above, without seeking to seek unilateral advantages, and if they succeed in establishing a cooperation free of discrimination and which takes due account of the interests of potential investors in the mining of the funds deep sea.

Notes:

(1) The requirements for the entry into force of the Agreement were met on 28 June 1996. Accordingly, the Agreement will enter into force on 28 July 1996 in accordance with Article 6 (1).

According to Article 7 (3), the provisional application of the Agreement will end on the date of its entry into force, i.e. 28 July 1996. According to the provisions of paragraph 12 (a) of Section 1.adel annexed to that Agreement, ' ... Upon entry into force of this Agreement, the States and the entities referred to in Article 3 of the Agreement which have been applying it provisionally in accordance with Article 7 and for which the Agreement is not in force may continue to be provisional members of the Authority until the Agreement enters into force with respect to them, in accordance with the following provisions:

(a) If this Agreement enters into force before 16 November 1996, those States and entities shall be entitled to continue to participate as provisional members of the Authority once they have notified the depositary of the Agreement its intention to participate as provisional members. The participation as provisional members shall end on 16 November 1996 or on the date of entry into force of this Agreement and of the Convention for such members, whichever is earlier. "

(2) The number of Parties does not include provisional members of the International Marine Fund Authority (see Note 5 to this Chapter).

(3) States and regional economic integration organisations listed as "Participants" are the States and regional economic integration organisations which have signed or adopted the Agreement. In accordance with Article 7 (1) (a) of the Agreement, the Agreement shall be applied provisionally until its entry into force by: (a) States which have consented to their adoption at the General Assembly of the United Nations, with the exception of those who, before 16 November 1994, notify the depositary in writing that they will not apply the Agreement in that way or which they shall consent to such (b) States and entities that sign the Agreement (unless otherwise notified at the time of signature); (c) States and entities that consent to their provisional application, and/or (d) the States that accede to the Agreement.

(4) State which, at the time of signature or at a later date, has notified that the simplified procedure provided for in Articles 4 (3) (c) and 5 has been selected.

(5) State or regional economic integration organisation which, at the entry into force of the Agreement, notified the Secretary-General of its intention to continue to participate as a provisional member of the International Authority of Marine Funds, in accordance with the first sentence of paragraph 12 (a) of Section 1.a of the Annex (see footnote 1 to this Chapter).

(6) State which, at the time of signature or at a later date, has notified that the simplified procedure provided for in Article 5 is not to be followed and that it will accordingly establish its consent to be bound by the Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 (3) (b), by means of subsequent ratification.

(7) State or regional economic integration organisation which has specified that its consent to the provisional application shall be subject to subsequent written notification to the depositary in accordance with Article 7 (1) (a) or that the Agreement provisionally does not apply in accordance with Article 7 (1) (b).

(8) On 14 November 1994, the Government of Italy notified the Secretary-General that it will apply the Agreement provisionally.

(9) For the Kingdom in Europe.

Brunei-Darussalam. 5 December 1996. Participation.

Romania. 17 December 1996. Accession entered into force on 16 January 1997.

The following States have notified the Secretary-General of their intention to continue participating as members of the International Marine Fund Authority on a provisional basis, in accordance with paragraph 12 (a), section 1.a of the Annex to the said Agreement, on the following dates:

United Arab Emirates: September 16, 1996.

Congo: November 13, 1996.

Lao People's Democratic Republic: November 14, 1996.

G. B. SHIPPING AND SHIPPING.

International Convention on Freight Lines. London, 5 April 1966. "Official State Gazette" of 10 August 1968, 26 October 1968 and 1 September 1982.

Equatorial Guinea. April 24, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 24 July 1996.

Eritrea. April 22, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 22 July 1996.

International Convention on the Arking of Ships. London, June 23, 1969. 'Official Journal of the State' of 15 September 1982.

Equatorial Guinea. April 24, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 24 July 1996.

Eritrea. April 22, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 22 July 1996.

Thailand. June 11, 1996. Accession, entry into force 11 September 1996.

Convention on the International Regulations to Avoid Collisions at Sea, as amended on 19 November 1981. London, 20 October 1972. 'Official Journal of the State' of 9 July 1977, 23 June 1983.

Equatorial Guinea. April 24, 1996. Accession.

Eritrea. April 22, 1996. Accession.

International Convention on Container Security, amended on 2 April 1981. Geneva, 2 December 1972. 'Official Journal of the State' of 13 September 1977 and 25 August 1982.

Cyprus. November 18, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 18 November 1997.

International Convention for the Safety of Human Life in the Sea, as amended. London, 1 November 1974. 'Official Journal of the State' of 16, 17 and 18 June 1980 and 13 September 1980.

Equatorial Guinea. April 24, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 24 July 1996.

Eritrea. April 22, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 22 July 1996.

Madagascar. March 7, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 7 June 1996.

Mozambique. December 23, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 7 March 1997.

Convention on the Carriage of Passengers and their Baggage by Sea. Athens, 13 December 1974. 'Official Journal of the State' of 6 May 1987.

Equatorial Guinea. April 24, 1996. Accession, entry into force 23 July 1996.

Protocol of 1978 on the International Convention for the Safety of Life of the Sea (1974). London, 17 February 1978. "Official State Gazette" of 4 May 1981.

Equatorial Guinea. April 24, 1996. Accession, entry into force 23 July 1996.

International Convention on Standards of Training, Titulation and Guard for the People of the Sea, 1978. London, 7 July 1978. 'Official Journal of the State' of 7 November 1984.

Equatorial Guinea. April 24, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 24 July 1996.

Eritrea. April 22, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 22 July 1996.

Madagascar. March 7, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 7 June 1996.

Bahrain. June 13, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 13 September 1996.

Iran. August 1, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 1 November 1996.

G. C. POLLUTION.

International Convention on the Intervention in the High Sea in Cases of Accidents causing Pollution by Hydrocarbons. Brussels. 29 September 1969. "Official State Gazette" of 26 February 1976.

Equatorial Guinea. April 24, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 24 July 1996.

Tonga. 1 February 1996. Accession, entry into force on 1 May 1996.

International Convention on Civil Liability for Damage to Pollution from Hydrocarbons. Brussels. 29 November 1969. "Official State Gazette" of 8 March 1976.

Equatorial Guinea. April 24, 1996. Accession, entry into force 23 July 1996.

Mozambique. December 23, 1996. Accession, entry into force 23 March 1997.

Bahrain. May 3, 1996. Accession, entry into force 1 August 1996.

Nicaragua. June 4, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 2 September 1996.

Tonga. 1 February 1996. Accession, entry into force on 1 May 1996.

International Convention of the Constitution of an International Fund for Compensation of Damage Caused by the Pollution of Hydrocarbons. Brussels, 18 December 1971. "Official State Gazette" of 11 March and 20 April 1982.

New Zealand. November 22, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 20 February 1997.

Mozambique. December 23, 1996. Accession, entry into force 23 March 1997.

Bahrain. May 3, 1996. Accession, entry into force 1 August 1996.

Switzerland. 4 July 1996. Accession, entry into force on 2 October 1996.

Tonga. 1 February 1996. Accession, entry into force on 1 May 1996.

Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from the Sea by Vertimento of Waste and other Materials. London, Mexico, Moscow and Washington, December 29, 1972. 'Official Journal of the State' of 10 November 1975.

Iran. 20 January 1997. Accession (deposited in London).

Tonga. November 8, 1995. Accession (deposited in London).

Protocol corresponding to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Caused by Hydrocarbons Pollution. London, 19 November 1976. 'Official Journal of the State' of 4 February 1982.

Bahrain. May 3, 1996. Accession.

Nicaragua. June 4, 1996. Accession.

Protocol corresponding to the International Convention on the Constitution of an International Fund for the Compensation of Damage Caused by the Pollution of Hydrocarbons, 1971. London, 19 November 1976. 'Official Journal of the State' of 29 June 1995.

Bahrain. May 3, 1996. Accession.

Protocol of 1978 on the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973. London, 17 February 1978. "Official State Gazette" of 17 and 18 October 1984.

Belgium. 4 January 1996. Accession with respect to Anejo IV.

Equatorial Guinea. April 24, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 24 July 1996.

Israel. 1 October 1996. Accession with regard to Annex III.

Republic of Korea. 28 February 1996. Accession with respect to the Annex IV and V.

Tonga. 1 February 1996. Accession, entry into force on 1 May 1996.

International Convention on Cooperation, Preparation and Fight against Pollution by Hydrocarbons, 1990. London, 30 November 1990. 'Official Journal of the State' of 5 June 1995.

Denmark. 22 October 1996. Ratification, entry into force on 22 January 1997, with the following reservation:

"The Convention shall not apply to the Faroe Islands."

Georgia. February 20, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 20 May 1996.

Switzerland. 4 July 1996. Accession, entry into force 4 October 1996.

Tonga. 1 February 1996. Accession, entry into force on 1 May 1996.

Protocol 1992 amending the International Convention on Civil Liability, born of Damage to Pollution by Hydrocarbons, 1969. London, 27 November 1992. 'Official Journal of the State' of 20 September and 24 October 1995.

Bahrain. May 3, 1996. Accession, entry into force 3 May 1997.

Monaco. November 8, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 8 November 1997.

Netherlands. 15 November 1996. Accession, entry into force on 15 November 1997.

Switzerland. 4 July 1996. Accession, entry into force 4 July 1996.

G. D. OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH.

G. E. PRIVATE LAW.

Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules on the Subject of Maritime Assistance and Rescue followed by a Protocol of Signature. Brussels, 23 September 1910. "Gazette of Madrid", dated 13 December 1923.

Norway. 9 December 1996. Denunciation. In accordance with Article 19 of the Convention, the complaint will take place on 9 December 1997.

Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Reclamation Of Maritime Law Claims. London, 19 November 1976. 'Official Journal of the State' of 27 December 1986.

Equatorial Guinea. April 24, 1996. Accession.

Georgia. February 20, 1996. Accession.

International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979. Hamburg, 27 April 1979. 'Official Journal of the State' of 30 April and 21 September 1993.

Mozambique. December 23, 1996. Accession.

H. AEREOS

H. A. GENERALS.

H. B. SHIPPING AND SHIPPING.

Multilateral Agreement on Tariffs for Air Navigation Aid. Brussels, 12 February 1981. 'Official Journal of the State' of 10 June 1987.

Slovak Republic. 26 November 1996. Accession, entry into force 1 January 1997.

Croatia. 7 January 1997. Accession, entry into force 1 March 1997.

H. C. PRIVATE LAW.

I. COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSPORT

I. A. POSTALES

I. B. TELEVISION AND RADIO.

I. C. SPACE.

Exchange of Letters, dated December 26, 1995 and January 22, 1996, Constitutive of Agreement between Spain and the United States for the extension of the agreement between the two countries on Scientific and Technical Cooperation in Support of the Lunar and Planetary Exploration and Manned And Unmanned Space Flight programs through the establishment in Spain of a Space Tracking Station, signed in Madrid on January 29, 1964.

The Exchange of Letters, dated 26 December 1995 and 22 January 1996, establishing an agreement between Spain and the United States extending the Agreement between the two countries on Scientific and Tenic Cooperation in Support of the Lunar and Planetary Exploration and Manned And Unmanned Space Flight programs through the establishment in Spain of a Space Tracking Station, signed in Madrid on January 29, 1964, the provisional application of which was published in the "Official Gazette of the State" number 188, dated 5 August 1996, entered into force, as establishes in its texts, on 13 February 1997, the date of the last cross-notification between the Parties communicating the fulfilment of their respective constitutional requirements.

I. D. SATELLITES.

Cospas-Sarsat International Program Agreement. Paris, 1 July 1988. 'Official Journal of the State' of 27 July and 8 December 1992.

Algeria. Entry into force on 10 May 1996, supplier on land.

Peru. Entry into force on 27 November 1996, supplier of land.

Madagascar. Entry into force 11 April 1996, State user.

I. E. ROADS.

Protocol on the European Conference of Ministers of Transport. Brussels, 17 October 1953. "Official State Gazette" of 14 February 1954.

Belarus. March 21, 1997. Accession.

European Agreement on the Work of the Crew of Vehicles Employees in the International Carriage of Goods by Road (AETR). Geneva, July 1, 1970. "Official State Gazette" of 18 November 1976.

stenstein. 6 November 1996. Accession, entry into force on 5 May 1997.

Andorra. February 13, 1996. Accession, entry into force on 12 August 1997.

Protocol to the Convention on the Contract for International Carriage of Goods by Road (C.M.R.). Geneva, 5 July 1978. 'Official Journal of the State' of 18 December 1982.

Uzbekistan. 27 November 1996. Accession, entry into force on 25 February 1997.

I. F. Railroads.

Convention on the Constitution of "Eurofima", European Company for the Financing of Railway Material. Bern, October 20, 1955. 'Official Journal of the State' of 30 November 1984.

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. 27 November 1996. Accession, entry into force on 27 December 1996.

International Convention on International Carriage by Rail (COTIF). Bern, 9 May 1980. 'Official Journal of the State' of 18 January 1986.

Slovak Republic. 13 September 1996. Maintenance of the reservations made by the Socialist Republic of the Slovak Republic, the text of which reads as follows:

" In accordance with Article 12.3 of the Convention on International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) and in accordance with Article 3.1 of Appendix A, Uniform Rules on the Contract of Transport (a) the international carriage of passengers and luggage (CIV), the Slovak Socialist Republic shall not apply Article 12.1 of the Convention on International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) and all provisions relating to the the responsibility of the railways for the death or injury caused to passengers in the case of citizens of the Slovak Socialist Republic or of travellers who have their permanent residence in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, when the accident occurred on their territory. '

Czech Republic. September 30, 1996. Maintenance of the reservations made by the Socialist Republic of Korea, the text of which is as follows:

" In accordance with Article 12.3 of the Convention on International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) and in accordance with Article 3.1 of Appendix A, Uniform Rules on the Contract of Transport (a) the international carriage of passengers and luggage (CIV), the Slovak Socialist Republic shall not apply Article 12.1 of the Convention on International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) and all provisions relating to the the responsibility of the railways for the death or injury caused to passengers in the case of citizens of the Slovak Socialist Republic or of travellers who have their permanent residence in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, when the accident occurred on their territory. '

Denmark. July 12, 1996. The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark has declared that it withdraws the reservation it made in accordance with Article 3 of Appendix A (IV) to the Convention.

Protocol 1990 amending the Convention on International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) of 9 May 1990. Bern, 20 December 1990. 'Official Journal of the State' of 23 September 1996.

Hungary. 1 October 1996. Ratification.

J. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL

J. A. ECONOMY.

Correction of errors in the Convention between Spain and the Republic of the Philippines to avoid double taxation and to prevent tax evasion in respect of income and protocol taxes, signed in Manila on 14 March 1989, published in the Official Gazette of the State, number 299, dated 15 December 1994.

In the publication of the Convention between Spain and the Republic of the Philippines to avoid double taxation and to prevent tax evasion in respect of income and protocol taxes, signed in Manila on 14 March 1989, The following error has been reported in the 'Official State Gazette' number 299 dated 15 December 1994:

On page 37754, first column, article 3 of the Protocol, fourth line, where it says: "... refers to Article 19 of Law 61/1978, ..."; it must say: " ... refers to article 12.2 of Law 44/1978, of 8 September, and the Article 19 of Law 61/1978, ... ".

Convention of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (O.C.D.E.). Paris, 14 December 1960. "Official State Gazette" of 5 October 1963.

Japan. April 28, 1964. Accession.

Finland. January 28, 1969. Accession.

New Zealand. May 29, 1973. Accession with the following statement:

"The Government of New Zealand declares that its accession to the Convention does not extend to the territories of the islands from which New Zealand assumes responsibility for international relations."

Czech Republic. December 21, 1995. Accession.

Mexico. May 9, 1994. Accession.

Hungary. May 7, 1996. Accession.

Korea. 12 December 1996. Accession.

Poland. November 22, 1996. Accession.

J. B. FINANCIAL.

Correction of the Agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Chile for the Protection and Promotion of Investments and Protocol, made in Santiago on 2 October 1991, published in the Official Journal of the European Union. State ' No 67 of 19 March 1994.

In the publication of the Agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Chile for the Protection and Promotion of Investments and Protocol, made in Santiago on 2 October 1991, carried out in the "Official Gazette of the State" Number 67, dated March 19, 1994, the following errata has been warned:

On page 9151, first column, article 10.2, third and fourth lines, where it says: "... it would have been raised by one or the other of the Parties ..."; he must say: "... it would have been raised by one or the other of the parties ...".

Convention on Settlement of Investment between States and Nationals of Other States. Washington, March 18, 1965. 'Official Journal of the State' of 13 September 1994.

Bolivia. June 23, 1995. Ratification, entry into force 23 July 1995.

Oman. July 24, 1995. Ratification, entry into force 23 August 1995.

Uzbekistan. July 26, 1995. Ratification, entry into force 25 August 1995.

St. Kitts and Nevis. August 4, 1995. Ratification, entry into force 3 September 1995.

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Paris, 29 May 1990. 'Official Journal of the State' of 7 May 1991.

Czech Republic. January 16, 1997. It is the case with reservations and declarations to the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic with effect from 1 January 1993.

At the time of the Ratification the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic on March 28, 1991 made the following reservation:

"In accordance with paragraph 7 of Article 53 of the Convention, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic reserves the right to tax the salaries and emoluments paid by the Bank to its citizens."

J. C. CUSTOMS AND TRADE.

Customs Convention on Containers. Geneva, 2 December 1972. "Official State Gazette" of 12 March 1976.

Uzbekistan. 27 November 1996. Accession, entry into force on 27 May 1997.

United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. Vienna, 11 April 1980. 'Official Journal of the State' of 30 January 1991.

Belgium. 31 October 1996. Accession, entry into force on 1 November 1997.

Uzbekistan. 27 November 1996. Accession, entry into force 1 December 1997.

Luxembourg. January 30, 1997. Accession, entry into force on 1 February 1998.

International Convention on the Harmonization of Frontier Controls of Goods. Geneva, 21 October 1982. 'Official Journal of the State' of 25 February 1986.

Uzbekistan. 27 November 1996. Accession, entry into force 27 February 1997.

Poland. 6 December 1996. Accession, entry into force on 6 March 1997.

Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization. Done at Marrakech on 15 April 1994. 'Official Journal of the State' of 24 January and 8 February 1995.

Brunei Darussalam. 10 December 1996. Communication:

Agreement on the implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.

The Government of Brunei Darussalam reserves the right to establish that the relevant provision of Article 4 of the Agreement will only apply when the customs administration accepts the request to reverse the order of application of Articles 5 and 6.

The Government of Brunei Darussalam also reserves the right to establish that the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Agreement shall be applied in accordance with those of the relevant note, as requested or not by the importer.

Tanzania. November 13, 1996. Communication:

The Government of the United Republic of Tanzania, exercising the rights conferred on it by paragraph 1 of Article 20 of the Agreement on the Application of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, officially notifies the Director-General of the World Trade Organization of its decision to delay the implementation of the provisions of the said Agreement for a period of five years.

Likewise, the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania, in exercise of the rights conferred on it by paragraph 2 of Article 20, officially notifies the Director-General of the World Trade Organization of its decision to delay the application of Article 1 (2) (b) (iii) and Article 6 for a period not exceeding three years from the date on which all other provisions of the said Agreement have been implemented.

Niger. November 13, 1996. Acceptance. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article XIV Niger shall become a Member of the O.M.C. on 13 December 1996 and as provided for in Article XI, paragraph 1, Niger shall be deemed to be an initial member of the O.M.C.

Zaire. 2 December 1996. Acceptance. In accordance with Article XIV, paragraph 1, Zaire shall become a Member of the World Trade Organization on 1 January 1997 and as provided for in Article XI, paragraph 1 shall be deemed to be the initial member of the O.M.C.

Mongolia. December 30, 1996. Acceptance of the Protocol of Accession of Mongolia to the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, made in Geneva on 18 July 1996.

PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF MONGOLIA TO THE MARRAKESH AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

The World Trade Organization (hereinafter referred to as the "WTO"), pursuant to the approval of the General Council of the WTO, granted in accordance with Article XII of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (hereinafter referred to as the 'WTO Agreement') and the Government of Mongolia (hereinafter referred to as 'Mongolia').

Taking note of the Report of the Working Group on the Accession of Mongolia to the WTO Agreement, set out in document WT/ACC/MNG/9 and Add.1-2 (hereinafter referred to as the "Working Group Report"),

Given the results of the negotiations on Mongolia's accession to the WTO,

Contain the following provisions:

FIRST PART

General provisions

1. On the date of entry into force of this Protocol, Mongolia shall accede to the WTO Agreement in accordance with Article XII of that Agreement and shall therefore become a Member of the WTO.

2. The WTO Agreement to which Mongolia shall accede shall be the amended or otherwise amended WTO Agreement by legal instruments which have entered into force before the date of entry into force of this Protocol. This Protocol, which shall include the commitments referred to in paragraph 61 of the Working Group Report, shall form an integral part of the WTO Agreement.

3. Mongolia shall notify the Secretariat annually of the implementation of the staggered commitments with final dates referred to in paragraphs 10, 13, 20, 21, 23, 24, 29, 35, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 51, 54, 59 and 60 of the Special Group Report; and will point to any delay in the application together with the reasons that explain it.

4. Save as otherwise provided in the preceding paragraph or in the paragraphs mentioned in paragraph 61 of the Working Group Report:

(a) The obligations laid down in the Multilateral Trade Agreements annexed to the WTO Agreement to be fulfilled over a period of time from the entry into force of that Agreement shall be fulfilled by Mongolia as if it had accepted that Agreement on the date of its entry into force.

(b) The notifications to be made under the Multilateral Trade Agreements annexed to the WTO Agreement within a given period of time from the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement shall be made by Mongolia within that period from the date of entry into force of this Protocol.

SECOND PART

Lists

5. The lists annexed to this Protocol shall become the List of Concessions and Commitments annexed to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "GATT 1994") and the List of Specific Commitments annexed to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (hereinafter referred to as "GATS") relating to Mongolia. The staggering of the concessions and commitments listed in the lists shall be applied in the form specified in the relevant parts of the respective lists.

6. For the purposes of the reference referred to in Article II (6) (a) of the GATT 1994 to the date of the said Agreement, the date applicable to the Lists of Concessions and Commitments annexed to this Protocol shall be the date of of the entry into force of the latter.

THIRD PART

Final Provisions

7. This Protocol shall be open to the acceptance of Mongolia by signature or formality of another class until 31 December 1996.

8. This Protocol shall enter into force 30 days after the date on which Mongolia has accepted it.

9. This Protocol shall be deposited with the Director-General of the WTO. The Director-General of the WTO shall, without delay, transmit to each WTO Member and to Mongolia an authenticated copy of this Protocol, as well as a notification of the acceptance by Mongolia in accordance with paragraph 7.

10. This Protocol shall be registered in accordance with the provisions of Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Made in Geneva, on July 18, 1996, in a single copy and in the Spanish, French and English languages, each of the texts being equally authentic.

In accordance with paragraph 8 of the Protocol, it shall enter into force on 29 January 1997. Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Protocol Mongolia, it shall become a Member of the WTO on 29 January 1997.

Bulgaria. 1 November 1996. Acceptance of the Protocol of Accession of the Republic of Bulgaria to the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, made in Geneva on 2 October 1996.

PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA TO THE MARRAKESH AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

The World Trade Organization (hereinafter referred to as the "WTO"), having regard to the approval of the General Council of the WTO, granted pursuant to Article XII of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the Organization World of Trade (hereinafter referred to as the "WTO Agreement"), and the Republic of Bulgaria (hereinafter referred to as "Bulgaria"),

Taking note of the report of the Working Group on the Accession of Bulgaria to the WTO set out in document WT/ACC/BGR/5 and Addenda 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "Working Group Report"),

Given the results of the negotiations held for Bulgaria's accession to the WTO,

Adopt the following provisions:

FIRST PART

General provisions

1. From the date of the entry into force of this Protocol, Bulgaria shall accede to the WTO Agreement in accordance with Article XII of that Agreement and shall therefore become a Member of the WTO.

2. The WTO Agreement to which Bulgaria will accede is the WTO Agreement in its rectified, amended or otherwise amended form by the legal instruments which would have entered into force before the date of entry into force of this Agreement. Protocol. The latter, including the commitments referred to in paragraph 92 of the report of the Working Group which are incorporated in that Protocol, shall be an integral part of the WTO Agreement.

3. Unless otherwise provided in the paragraphs referred to in paragraph 92 of the report of the Working Group, Bulgaria shall apply the obligations of the Multilateral Trade Agreements annexed to the WTO Agreement to be applied. over a period starting from the entry into force of that Agreement as if it had accepted that Agreement on the date of its entry into force.

4. Bulgaria may maintain a measure not in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article II of the GATS provided that it is included in the list of exemptions in Article II annexed to this Protocol and complies with the conditions laid down in the Annex. of the GATS on exemptions from the obligations of Article II.

SECOND PART

Lists

5. The lists annexed to this Protocol shall become the list of concessions and commitments annexed to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'GATT 1994') and the list of specific commitments annexed to the Agreement. General Agreement on Trade in Services (hereinafter referred to as "GATS") for Bulgaria. The scale of the concessions and the commitments listed in the lists shall be applied in accordance with the relevant parts of the respective lists.

6. For the purposes of the reference referred to in Article II (6) (a) of the GATT 1994 to the date of that Agreement, the date of entry into force of the lists of concessions and commitments annexed to this Protocol shall be the date of of the entry into force of the latter.

THIRD PART

Final Provisions

7. This Protocol shall be open for acceptance by signature or otherwise of Bulgaria until 30 April 1997.

8. This Protocol shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after it has been accepted.

9. This Protocol shall be deposited with the Director-General of the WTO. The Director-General of the WTO shall, without delay, transmit an authenticated copy of this Protocol, as well as a notification of the acceptance of this Protocol, in accordance with paragraph 7, to each WTO Member and to Bulgaria.

10. This Protocol shall be registered in accordance with the provisions of Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Made in Geneva, on 2 October 1996, in a single copy and in the Spanish, French and English languages, each of the texts being equally authentic.

In accordance with paragraph 8 of the Protocol, it shall enter into force on 1 December 1996. Pursuant to paragraph 1 of the Protocol Bulgaria shall become a Member of the World Trade Organization on 1 December 1996.

United Arab Emirates. 11 March 1996. Acceptance of the Protocol of Accession of the United Arab Emirates to the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, made in Geneva on 6 February 1996.

PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES TO THE MARRAKESH AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

The World Trade Organization (hereinafter referred to as the "WTO"), having regard to the approval of the General Council of the WTO, granted pursuant to Article XII of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the Organization World of Trade (hereinafter referred to as the "WTO Agreement"), and the United Arab Emirates,

recalling that certain contracting parties which acquired in 1994 the status of contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "GATT of 1947") were unable to complete the negotiations on their lists annexed to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "GATT 1994") and to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (hereinafter referred to as the "GATS").

recalling further that the General Council decided on 31 January 1995 that those contracting parties to the GATT of 1947 may accede to the WTO Agreement in accordance with a special procedure under which it is consider that the approval by the General Council of the lists annexed to the GATT 1994 and to the GATS will also represent the approval of their conditions of accession,

Taking note of the completion of the negotiations on the Lists of the United Arab Emirates,

Adopt the following provisions:

FIRST PART

General provisions

11. From the date of entry into force of this Protocol, the United Arab Emirates shall accede to the WTO Agreement in accordance with Article XII of that Agreement and shall therefore become Members of the WTO.

12. The WTO Agreement to which the United Arab Emirates will accede is the WTO Agreement in its rectified, amended or otherwise amended form by the legal instruments which would have entered into force before the date of entry into force of the Agreement. This Protocol shall apply. The latter will be an integral part of the WTO Agreement.

13. (a) The United Arab Emirates shall apply the obligations of the Multilateral Trade Agreements annexed to the WTO Agreement to be applied in the course of a period beginning from the entry into force of that Agreement as if there were accepted that Agreement on the date of its entry into force.

(b) The United Arab Emirates shall submit the notifications to be made under the Multilateral Trade Agreements annexed to the WTO Agreement subject to a specified time limit starting from the date of entry into force of the Agreement. in force of that Agreement within that period from the date of its acceptance of this Protocol or at the latest by 31 December 1996, if this deadline has expired.

14. The United Arab Emirates may maintain a measure incompatible with paragraph 1 of Article II of the GATS, provided that such a measure is listed in the List of Exemptions from the Obligations of Article II, annexed to this Protocol, and complies with the the terms of the Annex to the GATS on Exemptions from Article II Obligations.

SECOND PART

Lists

15. The lists annexed to this Protocol shall become the list of concessions and commitments annexed to the GATT 1994 and the list of specific commitments annexed to the GATS for the United Arab Emirates. The scale of the concessions and the commitments listed in the lists shall be applied in accordance with the relevant parts of the respective lists.

16. For the purposes of the reference referred to in Article II (6) (a) of the GATT 1994 to the date of that Agreement, the date of entry into force of the lists of concessions and commitments annexed to this Protocol shall be the date of of the entry into force of the latter.

THIRD PART

Final Provisions

17. This Protocol shall be open for acceptance, by signature or otherwise, of the United Arab Emirates until 90 days after its approval by the General Council.

18. This Protocol shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after it has been accepted.

19. This Protocol shall be deposited with the Director-General of the WTO. The Director-General of the WTO shall, without delay, transmit an authenticated copy of this Protocol, as well as a notification of the acceptance thereof, in accordance with paragraph 7, to each WTO member and to the United Arab Emirates.

20. This Protocol shall be registered in accordance with the provisions of Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Made in Geneva, on 6 February 1996, in a single copy and in the Spanish, French and English languages, each of the texts being equally authentic, unless the lists annexed to this Protocol are authentic in English.

In accordance with paragraph 8 of the Protocol, it shall enter into force on 10 April 1996. Pursuant to paragraph 1 of the Protocol, the United Arab Emirates shall become a Member of the World Trade Organization on 10 April 1996.

J. D. RAW MATERIALS.

Establishing the Common Fund for Basic Products. Geneva, 27 June 1980. 'Official Journal of the State' of 17 November 1989.

Ivory Coast. October 29, 1996. Accession.

Myanmar. November 21, 1996. Accession.

Mandate of the International Copper Study Group adopted by the United Nations Conference on Copper. Geneva, 24 February 1989. 'Official Journal of the State' of 14 February and 24 June 1992 (provisional application). 'Official Journal of the State' of 18 June 1994.

Russian Federation. January 21, 1997. Final acceptance.

International Cocoa Convention 1993. Done at Geneva on 16 July 1993. 'Official Journal of the State' of 3 May 1994 (provisional application). 'Official Journal of the State' of 21 February 1995.

Brazil. 10 December 1996. Ratification.

Dominican Republic. February 6, 1997. Provisional application.

International Tropical Timber Agreement, 1994. Provisional application. Geneva, 26 January 1994. 'Official Journal of the State' of 21 November 1996.

Ivory Coast. September 9, 1996. Signature and provisional application.

Guyana. 13 September 1996. Signature.

India. 17 September 1996. Signature.

United States. November 14, 1996. Acceptance, provisional entry into force 1 January 1997.

Zaire. 17 December 1996. Signature.

Brazil. December 13, 1997. Signature.

International Coffee Agreement 1994. London, 30 March 1994. 'Official Journal of the State' of 13 January and 20 October 1995.

Vietnam. 14 October 1996. Accession.

Philippines. November 18, 1996. Accession.

Guatemala. 2 October 1996. Ratification.

Nicaragua. March 24, 1997. Accession.

International Convention of Natural Rubber 1995. Provisional application. 'Official Journal of the State' of 21 March 1997.

Germany. November 26, 1996. Application

provisional.

Austria. 20 November 1996. Ratification.

Belgium. November 26, 1996. Provisional application.

China. 14 February 1997. Approval.

Ivory Coast. March 14, 1997. Accession.

Denmark. 14 January 1997. Provisional application.

United States. December 27, 1996. Ratification.

Spain. 15 January 1997. Ratification.

Finland. 17 January 1997. Provisional application.

Indonesia. December 27, 1996. Ratification.

Ireland. 31 December 1996. Ratification.

Luxembourg. November 26, 1996. Provisional application.

Malaysia. December 24, 1996. Ratification.

Netherlands (1). 4 December 1996. Acceptance.

United Kingdom. 6 December 1996. Provisional application.

CEE. December 18, 1996. Application provi sional.

(1) By the Kingdom in Europe.

K. AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

K. A. AGRICULTURE.

Memorandum of responsibilities to be taken by the Kingdom of Spain and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in respect of the 38.th Meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Rice (Seville, 14 to 17 May 1996).

The Memorandum of Responsibilities to be assumed by the Kingdom of Spain and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in respect of the 38.th Meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Rice (Seville, 14 to 17 May 1996), the provisional application of which was published in the 'Official Gazette of the State' number 243 dated 8 October 1996, entered into force on 16 April 1997, as set out in its clause 23, on 16 April 1997 Spain notified the FAO of the completion of the internal procedures provided for in its Conclusion of international treaties.

Agreement establishing the International Center for High-egronomic Mediterranean Studies. Paris, May 21, 1962. "Official State Gazette" of 2 March 1970.

Egypt. May 12, 1986. Accession. Malta. 29 March 1989. Accession.

Tunisia. 1 July 1985. Accession.

Algeria. June 6, 1986. Accession, with the following reservations:

1. With the following reservations concerning Additional Protocol number 2 (unofficial translation of the text of the original in Arabic):

(a) the immunity of jurisdiction provided for in Article 2 of Title I of Additional Protocol No 2 shall apply only within the limits of the general principles of international law.

(b) the expropriation exemption provided for in Article 3 of Title I of Additional Protocol No 2 shall not apply in cases of public utility recognised by Algerian legislation;

(c) the tax exemption for salaries provided for in Article 7 (a) of Additional Protocol No 2 shall not apply to nationals of countries which are the seat of institutes or to persons who have resided in such institutions. countries during the performance of their duties.

France. February 3, 1965. Ratification.

Greece. January 12, 1965. Ratification.

Italy. September 9, 1965. Ratification with the following reservations:

2. With the following reservations concerning Additional Protocol number 2:

I. Immunity from jurisdiction and exemption from expropriation as provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Title I of Additional Protocol No 2 shall apply only in so far as the general principles of international law recognise them. to foreign states.

II. Exemption from direct taxes on wages and salaries laid down in Article 7 (a) of Title II of Additional Protocol No 2 shall not apply to nationals of the State in which the Institutes are situated or to the persons who, at the time of their recruitment, were already regarded as regular residents of that State.

Morocco. 31 October 1990. Accession, with the following reservation:

3. With the following reservation concerning Additional Protocol No 2: The exemption from direct taxes on salaries and remuneration provided for in Article 7 (1) of Additional Protocol No 2 shall not apply to officials Moroccans of the Centre residing in Morocco.

4. Deposits of an instrument of ratification specific to Additional Protocol No 2 on 19 April 1967.

Portugal. January 10, 1966. Ratification of Additional Protocol 2.

Turkey. May 9, 1967. Ratification.

K. B. FISHERIES.

K. C. PROTECTION OF ANIMALS AND PLANTS.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Washington, March 3, 1973. 'Official Journal of the State' of 30 July 1986 and 24 November 1987.

Zambia. March 20, 1997. Withdrawal of the reservation made on 8 January 1990 against the movement of the African Elephant 'Loxodonta africana' from Annex II to Annex I to the Convention.

Latvia. February 11, 1997. Accession, entry into force on 12 May 1997. Swaziland. 26 February 1997. Accession, entry into force on 27 May 1997.

Convention on the Conservation of Wildlife and the Natural Environment in Europe. Bern, 19 September 1979. 'Official Journal of the State' of 1 October 1986.

Amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on 6 December 1996 to the Council of the European Union and to the Council of the European Union on 7 March 1997.

AMENDMENTS TO ANNEX I AND II TO THE BERNE CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF WILDLIFE AND THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IN EUROPE ADOPTED BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON 6 DECEMBER 1996

Annex I

Strictly protected flora species

Algae/Algas:

Caulerpa ollivieri (in the Mediterranean).

Cystoeira amentacea (including var. stricta and spicata) (in the Mediterranean).

Mediterranean Cystoseira (in the Mediterranean).

Cystoseira sedoids (in the Mediterranean).

Cystoseira spinosa (including C. adriatica) (in the Mediterranean).

Cystoseira zostálidos (in the Mediterranean).

Goniolithon byssoides (in the Mediterranean).

Laminaria rodriguezii (in the Mediterranean).

Laminaria ochroleuca (in the Mediterranean).

Lithophyllum lichenoids (in the Mediterranean).

Mediterranean Ptilophora (in the Mediterranean).

Schimmelmannia schousboei = S. ornata (in the Mediterranean).

Phanerogamia/Fanerogamas:

Cymodocea nodosa (in the Mediterranean).

Ocean Posidonia (in the Mediterranean).

Zostera marina (in the Mediterranean).

Pteridophyta

Ophioglossaceae:

Botrychium matricariifolium A. Braun ex Koch.

Botrychium multifidum (S. G. Gmelin) Rupr.

Angiospermae

Amaryllidaceae:

Narcissus angustifolius Curt.

Asclepiadaceae:

Vincetoxicum pannonicum (Borhidi) Holub.

Boraginaceae:

Onosma Polyphylla Lebed.

Onosma tornensis Javorka.

Myosotis praecox Hulphers.

Campanulaceae:

Campanula abietina Griseb. et Schenk.

Gampanula gelida Kovanda.

Campanula lanata Friv.

Campanula Romanesque Savul.

Caryophllaceae:

Cerastium alsinifolium Tausch.

Dianthus hypanicus Andrz.

Dianthus nitidus Waldst. et Kit.

Dianthus serotinus Waldst. et Kit.

Dianthus urumoffii Stoj. et Acht.

Minuartia smejkalii Dvorakova.

Moehringia hypanica Grynj. et Klok.

Moehringia jankae Griseb. ex Janka.

Silene cretacea Fisch is Spreng.

Cistaceae:

Helianthemum arcticum (Grosser) Janch.

Compositae:

Achillea glaberrima Klok.

Achillae thracica Velen.

Andryala levitomentosa (E. I. Nayardy) P. D. Sell.

Anthemis trotzkiana Claus ex Bunge.

Carlina onopordifolia Besser.

Centaurea akamantis.

Centaurea dubjanskyi Iljin.

Centaurea jankae Brandza.

Centaurea pineicola Iljin.

Centaurea pontica Prodan & E. I. Nayardy.

Centaurea pseudoleucolepis Kleop.

Dendranthema zawadskyi (Herb.) Tzvel.

Lagoseris purpurea (Willd.) Boiss.

Serratula tanaitica P. Smirn.

Cruciferae:

Alyssum borzaeanum E. I. Nayardy.

Armoracia macrocarpa (Waldst. & Kit.) Kit. ex Baumg.

Aurinia uechtritziana (Bornm.) Cullen et T. R. Dudley.

Brassica sylvestris (l.) Mill. subsp. taurica Tzvel.

Cochlearia polonica Frohlich.

Crambe koktebelica (Junge) N. Busch.

Crambe litwinonowii K. Gross.

Draba dorneri Heuffel.

Erysimum pieninicum (Zapal.) Pawl.

Lepidum turczaninowii Lipsky.

Schivereckia podiolic (Besser) Andrz.

Thlaspi jankae A. Kern.

Ericaceae:

Vaccinium arctostaphylos L.

Gesneriaceae:

Haberlea rhodopensis Friv.

Gramineae:

Bromus moesiacus Velen.

Poa granitica Br. -Bl.

Poa riphaea (Ascherson et Graebner) Fritsch.

Stipa danubialis Dihoru & Roman.

Stipa syreistschikowii P. Smirn.

Iridaceae:

Gladiolus felicis Mirek.

Labiatae:

Teucrium lamifolium D' Urv.

Leguminosae:

Astragalus aitosessis Ivanisch.

Astragalus kungurensis Boriss.

Astragalus peterfii Jav.

Astragalus physocalyx Fischer.

Astragalus psedopurpureus Gusul.

Astragalus setosulus Gontsch.

Astragalus tanaiticus C. Koch.

Genista tetragona Bess.

Hedysarum razoumovianum Fisch. et Helm.

Trifolium banaticum (Heuffel) Majovsky.

Liliaceae:

Allium regelianum A. Beck.

Colchicum Davidovii Stef.

Colchicum fominii Bordz.

Fritillaria graeca Boiss.

Fritillaria Montana Hoppe.

Lilium jankae A. Kerner.

Lilium rhodopaeum Delip.

Tulipa hungarica Borbas.

Linaceae:

Linum dolomiticum Borbas.

Najadaceae:

Caulinia tenuissima (A. p. ex Magnus) Tzvel.

Oleaceae:

Syringa josikaea Jacq. fil.

Orchidaceae:

Himantoglossum caprinum (Bieb.) C. Koch.

Orchis punctucan Stev. ex Lindl.

Steveniella satyrioides (Stev.) Schlecther.

Paeoniaceae:

Paeonia officinalis L. subsp. banatica (Rochel) Soo.

Paeonia tenuifolia L.

Polygonaceae:

Rheum rhaponticum L.

Primulaceae:

Cyclamen coum Mill.

Cyclamen kuznetzovii Kotov et Czernova.

Primula deorum Velen.

Primula frondosa Janka.

Primula wulfenana Scot. subsp. baumgarteniana (Degen & Moesz) Ludi.

Ranunculaceae:

Aconitum flerovii Steinb.

Aconitum lasiocarpum (Reichenb.) Gayer.

Anemone uralense Nevski.

Pulsatilla grandis Wend. Pulsatilla halleri (All.) Willd. subsp. grandis (Wend.) Meikle.

Pulsatile Slavica G. Reuss.

Rosaceae:

Geum bulgaricum Panc.

Potenthilla emilii-popii E. I. Nayardy.

Potenilla silesiaca Uechtr.

Rubiaceae:

Galium cracoviense Ehrend.

Galium moldavicum (Dobrescu) Franco.

Galium rhodopeum Velen.

Scrophulariaceae:

Linaria loeselii Schweigger.

Willd sudetic order.

Verbascum purpureum (Janka) Huber-Morath.

Veronica euxina Turrill.

Veronica turrilliana Stoj. et Stef.

Thymelaceae:

Daphne Arbuscula Celak.

Valerianaceae:

Centranthus kellerérii (Stoj. Stef. et Georg.) Stoj. et Stef.

Umbelliferae:

Ferula orientalis L.

Sadlerian Ledebour Ferula.

Annex II

Strictly protected fauna species

Vertebrates

Mammals:

Balaenoptera acutostrata (in the Mediterranean).

Balaenoptera borealis (in the Mediterranean).

Kogia simus (in the Mediterranean).

Mesoplodon densirostris (in the Mediterranean).

Physetter macrocephalus (in the Mediterranean).

Reptiles:

Trionyx triumphs.

Rafetus euphratius.

Lacerta clarkorum.

Colüber cypriensis.

Natrix megalocephala.

Vipera albizona.

Vipera barani.

Pontic Vipera.

Vipera wagneri.

Amphibians:

Neurergus strauchi.

Neurergus crocatus.

Rana holtzi.

Discoglossus montalentii.

Fish:

acipenser sturio (in the Mediterranean).

Aphanius fasciatus (in the Mediterranean).

Aphanius Iberus (in the Mediterranean).

Carcharodon carcharias (in the Mediterranean).

Hippocampus ramulosus (in the Mediterranean).

Hippocampus hippocampus (in the Mediterranean).

The spindle zone (in the Mediterranean).

Letherteron zanandrai (in the Mediterranean).

Pomatoschistus canestrinii (in the Mediterranean).

Pomatoschistus tortonesei (in the Mediterranean).

Invertebrates

Arthropods:

Insects (butterflies):

Polyommatus wetdasae.

Polyommatus galloi.

Crustaceans:

Ocypode cursor (in the Mediterranean).

Pachyplasma giganeum (in the Mediterranean).

Molluscs:

Rubicunda Charonia (= C. lampas = C. nodifference) (in the Mediterranean).

Charonia tritonis (= C. seguenziae) (in the Mediterranean).

Dendroma petraeum (in the Mediterranean).

Erosaria spurca (in the Mediterranean).

Gibbula nivosa (in the Mediterranean).

Lithophaga lithophaga (in the Mediterranean).

Luria lurida (= Cypraea lurida) (in the Mediterranean).

Mitra zonata (in the Mediterranean).

Patella ferruginea (in the Mediterranean).

Patella nigra (in the Mediterranean).

Pholas dactylus (in the Mediterranean).

Pinna pernull (in the Mediterranean).

Ranella olearia (in the Mediterranean).

Schilderia achatidea (in the Mediterranean).

Tonna galea (in the Mediterranean).

Zonaria pyrum (in the Mediterranean).

Equinoderms:

asterina pancerii (in the Mediterranean).

Centrotephanus longispinus (in the Mediterranean).

Ophidiaster ophidianus (in the Mediterranean).

Cnidaries:

Astroides calycularis (in the Mediterranean).

Errina aspera (in the Mediterranean).

Gerardia savaglia (in the Mediterranean).

Poriferos:

Asbestofeathera hypogea (in the Mediterranean).

Aplysina cavernicola (in the Mediterranean).

Axinelle polyploides (in the Mediterranean).

Petrobiona massiliana (in the Mediterranean).

Latvia. 23 January 1997. Signature and ratification with the following reservations:

" In accordance with Article 22 (1) of the Convention, the Republic of Latvia reserves the right not to apply the provisions of the Convention to:

Annex I:

Cypripedium calceolus L.

Liparis loeselii (L.) Rich.

Pulsatilla patens (L.) Miller.

Annex II:

Canis Lupus.

Rana arvalis.

Annex III:

Corvus corax.

Lampetra fluviatilis.

Abramis vimba.

Annex IV:

Mammals:

Artificial light sources.

Traps.

Birds:

Networks.

European Convention on the Protection of Vertebrate Animals Used for Experimental Purposes and Other Scientific Finances. Strasbourg, 18 March 1986. 'Official Journal of the State' of 25 October 1990.

Netherlands. 21 January 1997. Acceptance, entry into force on 1 August 1997, with the following statement:

"The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts this Convention for the Kingdom of Europe."

L. INDUSTRIAL AND TECHNICAL

L. A. INDUSTRIAL.

Constitution of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Vienna, 8 April 1979. 'Official Journal of the State' of 21 February 1986.

Australia. December 23, 1996. Complaint with effect from 31 December 1997.

L. B. ENERGY AND NUCLEAR.

Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency. New York, October 26, 1956. 'Official Journal of the State' of 26 February 1958 and 28 October 1980.

Georgia. February 23, 1996. Acceptance.

International Convention on Civil Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy. Paris, July 29, 1960. "Official State Gazette" of 2 February 1967.

Instrument Signature/Deposit

of ratification

or adhesion (a)

Federal Republic of Germany (1) (2)/29-7-1960/30-9-1995

Austria (2)/29-7-1960/-

Belgium/29-7-1960/3-8-1966

Denmark (4)/29-7-1960/4-9-1974

Spain/29-7-1960/31-10-1961

Finland (3)/-/8-6-1972 (a)

France (5)/29-7-1960/9-3-1966

Greece (2)/29-7-1960/12-5-1970

Italy/29-7-1960/17-9-1975

Luxembourg/29-7-1960/-

Norway (2)/29-7-1960/2-7-1973

Netherlands (2)/29-7-1960/28-12-1979

Portugal/29-7-1960/29-9-1977

United Kingdom (6)/29-7-1960/23-2-1966

Sweden (2)/29-7-1960/1-4-1968

Switzerland/29-7-1960/-

Turkey/29-7-1960/10-10-1961

(1) With a declaration of application to the Land of Berlin.

(2) The following reservations or statements were accepted at the date of signature of the Convention or at the date of signature of the Additional Protocol:

1. Article 6 (a) and (c) (i):

Federal Republic Reserve of Germany, Austria and Greece:

Reserve of the right to leave subsisting, under a provision of national law, the responsibility of a person other than the operator, provided that such person is fully covered, even if the (a) action shall be unfounded, for insurance or other financial collateral obtained by the operator or for public funds.

2. Article 6 (b) and (d):

Austria, Greece, Norway and Sweden reserve:

Reserve of the right to consider as international agreements for the purposes of Article 6 (b) and (d) national laws establishing provisions equivalent to those of the international agreements referred to in Article 6 (b).

3. Article 8 (a):

Federal Republic of Germany and Austria Reserve:

Reserve of the right to establish, in respect of nuclear accidents occurring respectively in the Federal Republic of Germany and in the Republic of Austria, a limitation period exceeding ten years, if have provided for measures to cover the responsibility of the operator in respect of shares for the purpose of obtaining an indemnity, after the expiry of the ten-year period and during the period of extension of that period.

4. Article 9:

Federal Republic of Germany and Austria Reserve:

Reserve of the right to establish, in respect of nuclear accidents occurring respectively in the Federal Republic of Germany and in the Republic of Austria, that the operator is responsible for the damage caused by a nuclear accident if such an accident is directly due to acts resulting from an armed conflict, from hostilities, from civil war, from insurrection or from natural cataclysms of an exceptional nature.

Netherlands Declaration:

' In connection with the reservation made by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and by the Government of the Republic of Austria in respect of Article 9 of this Additional Protocol, the Delegate of the Netherlands declares the Government of the Netherlands reserves the right to grant operating licences to operators of nuclear installations in the Netherlands, with the understanding that the responsibility of these operators under the Convention will cease, in the case of transport of nuclear substances to Germany or Austria at the time when those substances cross the border of Germany or Austria respectively. '

5. Article 19:

Federal Republic Reserve of Germany, Austria and Greece:

Reserve of the right to consider that the ratification of this Convention implies the obligation, in accordance with international law, to adopt in the internal field provisions relating to civil liability in nuclear energy which is in conformity with the provisions of this Convention.

(3) With the following reservation at the time of adhesion:

Reserve of the right to consider as international agreements for the purposes of Article 6 (b) and (d) national laws establishing provisions equivalent to those of the international agreements referred to in Article 6 (b).

(4) Declaration of 5 September 1974 on the application to the Faroe Islands.

(5) Declaration of 7 September 1967 on the application to the overseas departments and territories.

(6) Following territorial application declarations:

December 4, 1970: Gibraltar.

23 March 1972: Bahamas, Solomon Islands, Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, Monserrat, Falkland Islands (Falkland), Gilbert Islands and Ellice.

April 19, 1972: Santa Elena.

March 29, 1973: British Virgin Islands.

June 30, 1977: Guernsey.

March 6, 1981: Jersey.

Additional Protocol to the Convention on Civil Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy. Paris, January 28, 1964. "Official State Gazette" of 9 July 1968.

Portugal. September 29, 1977. Ratification.

Denmark. September 4, 1974. Ratification with the following statement:

"Denmark applies this Protocol to the Faroe Islands."

Italy. September 17, 1975. Ratification.

Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials. Vienna and New York, 26 October 1979. 'Official Journal of the State' of 25 October 1991.

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. 20 September 1996. Succession with effect from 17 November 1991.

Convention on the Pronta Notification of Nuclear Accidents. Vienna, 26 September 1986. 'Official Journal of the State' of 31 October 1989.

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. 20 September 1996. Succession with effect from 17 November 1991.

Convention on Assistance in the Event of Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency. Vienna, 26 September 1986. 'Official Journal of the State' of 31 October 1989.

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. 20 September 1996. Succession with effect from 17 November 1991.

L. C. TECHNICIANS.

What is made public for general knowledge.

Madrid, May 26, 1997. -Technical Secretary General, Julio Núñez Montesinos.