Exposés écrits

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

MEMOIRES, PLAIDOIRIET DOCUMENTS

.RÉSERVES A LA CONVENTION
POUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA

RÉPRESSION DU CRIME

DE GÉNOCIDE
AVICONSULTDU28hIA1951 INTEIINATIOiVAL COUKL'OF JUSTICE

PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS

RESERVATIONS TO THE
CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION

AND PUNISHMENT OF THE
CRIME OF GENOCIDE TABLE DES MATIÈRES -- CONTENTS

PREMIÈRE PARTIE. - REQUÊTE
POUR AVIS CONSULTATIF ET PIÈCES

DE LA PROCPDURE ÉCRITE
PART 1.-REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION

AND DOCUMENTS OF THE WRITTEN PROCEEDINGS

SECTIOS A. - REQUeTE POUR AVIS CONSULTATIF

SECTION A.-REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION
Pages
1. - Lettre adresséepar le Secrétaire généradles Kations Unies
au Président de la Cour (17 XI 50).- Letter from the
Secretary-General of the United Nations to the President
of the Court (17 XI 50) .......... 8
II. - Résolution adoptée par l'Assemblée général àe sa
305- séance plénihrele 16 novembre 1950. - Reso-
lution adoptedby the GeneralAssemblyat its305thPlenary
Meeting on 16 November, 1950 .........
9

SECTION B. - DOCUhIENTS TRASSAIIS AVEC LA REQUeTE
SECTIOS B.-DOCUhIESTS TRANShlITTED WITH THE REQUEST

Bordereau des documents joints à la requête le Secrétaire
général des Nations Unies. - List of documents transmitted with
the Request by the Secretary-General of the United Nations II

SECTION C-WRITTEN STATEhIENTS

1. - Written statement of the Organization of American States
(14 XII 50) ................ 15
z. - Exposé écritdu Gouvernement des Républiquessocialistes
soviétiques (13 I 51) .......... 21

3. - Written statement of the Government of the Hashimite
Kingdom of the Jordan (9 151) . . . 22
4. - Written statement of the Government of the United States
of America ............... 23
j. - Written statement of the Government of the United
Kingdom (January 19j1) ..........
48
32 Pages
6. - \\'ritten statement of the Secretary-General of the United
Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
7. - \Vritten statement of the Government of Israel (14 I 51) 195
S. - \I7ritten statement of the International Labour.Organ-
ization (12 I 51). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

9. - \Vritten statement of the Govemment of Poland (13 I51) 283
IO. - Exposé écritdu Gouvernement de Tchécoslovaquie
(20 I 51) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
II. - Exposé écrit du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas (19 I 51) 268

12. - Exposé écritdu Gouvernement de la République populaire
de Roumanie (20 I 51) . . . . . . . . . . . . z90
13. - \Vritten statement of the Govemment of the Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic (20 I 51) . . . . . . . . 292
14. - Exposé écritdu Gouvernement de la République populaire
de Bulgarie (19 I jr) . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

15. - Esposé écritdu Gouvernement de la République socialiste
soviétique de Biélorussie (22 r jr) . . . . . . . . 294
16. - IVritten statement of the Government of the Republic of
the Philippines (17 1 jr) . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

DEUSIÈBIE PARTIE. - sli;\xc~s PUBLIQUES
ET EXPOSÉS ORAUX

PART II.-PUBLIC SITTINGS AXD OR.4L STATE>IENTS

IO IV 51 (m.) . . . 300 13 IV 51 (m.) . . . 303
II ii u (» ) . . . 302 13 » » (a.-m.) . . 303
II 1, » (a.-m.) . . 302 14 » ii (m.) . . . 304
12 ii n (m.) . . . 303 14 8 n (a.-m.) . . 304
2S v n (m.) . . . 304

ANNEXEAUX PROCÈS-VERBAUX
ANNEX TO THE MINUTES

1. - Exposé de M. Ivan S. I'ierno (Nations Unies) :
IO IV 51 (m.) . . . 306 II IV 51 (m.) . . 319

2. - Statement bv Mr. Shabtai Rosenne (Israel) :
11 IV 51 (m.) . . . 32s 12 IV 51 (m.). . . 352
, 2, 3 f. . . 339
3. - Statement hy Sir Hartley Sha~vcross(U.K.) :

13 IV 51 (m.) . . . 358 13 IV 51 (aft.). . . 375
4. - Statement by Mr. Fitzmaurice (U.K.), 14 IV 51 (m.) 402
5. - Exposé de M. Charles Rousseau (France) :
14 IV 51 (m.) . . , . 417 14 IV 51 (a.-m.) . . 421 SECTION C. - EXPOSÉS ÉCRITS

SECTION C.-WRITTEN STATEMENTS

1. IVRITTEN STATEhIENT OF THE ORGAXIZATION
OF t1MERICAN STATES

REPORT SUBhIITTED BY THE DEPARTAIENT OF INTERNATIONAL

LAW AND ORGANIZATION OF THE PAN-AJIERICAN UNION
The problem of reservations to multilateral treaties has long
been a matter of concern to the American States. In general, the
procedure follo\red in respect to the deposit of ratifications accom-

panied by rcservatioiis has been governed by a desire to facilitate
ratification of the particular convention by as large a number of
States as ~>ossible,while takiiig account of the fact that individual
States have fixed national policies in certain matters which they
arc iiot rcady to abandon eveii for the sake of the adoption of
a treaty \\.hich they may othenvise recognize as promoting the
development of international la\\, or furthering their common
political and economic interests. To adopt a rigidrule prohibiting
al1 reservations except those unaniinously agrced to might defeat
the adoption of the convention. To admit reservations without
any limitation might makc the convention of little practical value.

The procedure adopted by the Pan-American Union has sought
to draw a liiie betweeii the two extremes, solving the problem by
practical considerations based upon the experience of the ratifi-
cation of a hundred or more multilateral treaties.
At the Sisth International Conference of American States, held
' at Havana in 1928,a Convention on Treaties \vas adopted, Articl6,
paragraph 3, of \%.hichprovided that :
"In international treaties celebrated betweeii diiferent States,
a reservation madeby one of thern in the act of ratification affects
only the application of the clause in question in the relation of
the other contracting States with the Statengthe reservation."

The adoption of this rule, no\\, abandoned. \\,is line with the
practice recognized as applicable to the conventions adopted at
the Hague Conferences. The ratifications of conventions were
deposited at The Hague with such reservations as the particular
State chose ta enter, and the State in question became thereupon
a party to the convention except in respect to the obligations
covered by the resen~atioii. IVhether the reservation of a particular
article or articleof the convention might not have the effect of
making other obligations of the convention less binding, or indeed

might not have the effect of invalidating the convention altogether,
\vas left ta each of the ratifying States to decide.16 STATEMENT ORGANIZATIOS OF AMERICAS STATES

It would appear from a stiidy of the historical background of
the paragraph ahove cited that the Havana Confcrcnce had iii
mind rcservations to individual articles of a convention which
could be segregated from the other articles of the convention so
as to permit the reserving State to become a party to the con-
vention forthwith without the necessity of making inquiry of the
other parties to the convention whether they were prepared to
accept the reservation or not. But such segregation is not alurays
possible. More often the articles of a multilateral treaty are closely
integrated, so that thc elimination of one article may affect the
consideration which led to the acceptance of other articles. Nor

does Article 6, paragraph 3, take into account the case whcre a
reservation, instead of limiting the obligation of the convention.
might seek to extend it, creating obligations for the other parties
which they had no intention of assuming when they signed the
original treaty.
In an effort tomeet the prohlems presented to the Pan-Americaii
Union in the exercise of its functions as depository of diplomatic
documents, the Governing Board of the Union, on May 4, 1932,
approved a resolution setting forth six rules dealiug with the
procedure to he followed with respect to the deposit of ratifications
of multilateral treaties and three rules relating to the juridical
status of treaties ratified with reservations. The six rules of pro-

cedure rcad as follows :
"1. To assume the custody of the original instrument.
z. To fumish copies thereof to al1the signatory govemments.

3. To receive the instruments of ratificûtioii of the signatory
States, including the reservations.
4. '1'0ii~i~iui~ic tlic dqiusit of rtificitns tu tlic olher
sicnaturv St.ites and.i~tlivi:isc of reïeri,;ititu~iiforiithem
tGereof..
5. To receive the replies of the other signatory States as to
whether or not they accept the reservations.
6. To inform al1the States, signatory to the treaty, if the reserv-
ations have or have not been accepted."

It will be observed that the fourth rule makes no distinction
hetween States which have already deposited their ratifications
and other signatory States which have not yet ratified. Nor does
the fifth mle make any distinction hetween the signatory States
which have already ratified and those which have not ratified in
respect to their acceptance of the reservations. In like manner
information as to the acceptance or rejection of the reservations
is sent to al1 of the signatory States irrespcctive of any action
that they may previously have taken.

Supplementing these rules, which are concerned solely with the
procedure of depositing ratifications, are three additional rules
representing the understanding of the Governing Board with STATEMEST ORGASIZATIOS OF AJIERICAN STATES I7
respect to the juridical effect of the reservations which a particular
State might add at the time it deposits its ratification of the
treaty. These rules read as follo\vs :

"With respect to the juridical status of treaties ratified witli
reservations, which have not been accepted, the Governing Board
of the Pan-American Union understands that :
I.The treaty shall he in force, in the form in which it was sigiied,
as between those countrics which ratify it without reservations,
in the terms in which it was originally drafted and signed.

z. It shall he in force as between the #overnments whicli ratify
it with reservations and the signatory States which accept the
reservations in the form in which the treaty may be modified
by said reservations.
3. It shall not beinforce between a government which rnay have
ratified with reservations and another wliich may have already
ratified, and which does not accept such resenrationi."

The first and second of these rules confirm the traditional practice
that, as between the States which ratify a treaty without reserv-
ations, it shall be in force in the form in which it was originally
signed, and that it shall be in force between the State ratifying
it with reservations and the other signatory States accepting the
reservations in the forrn in which the treaty may be modified by
the reservations. The third rule marks the abandonment of thc
provision of Article 6, paragraph 3, of the Havana Convention of
1928 which contemplated that reservations to multilateral treaties
should do no more than affect the application of the particular
clause in question, permitting the reserving State to become a
party to the treaty without inquiry in advance as to the attitude
of the other contracting States. The rule, however, fails to indicate
whether the original agreement should be regarded as valid betweeii
the parties ratifying it without reservations, in case the number

of those ratifying it with reservations should destroy the multi-
lateral character of the agreement by reducing it in practical effect
to a series of bilateral agreements.
At the Severith International Conference of American States,
held at Montevideo in 1933, a Kesolution (LVII) was adopted
calling upon the Pan-American Union to communicate with the
American Governments in an effort to have them explain the
objections they might have to ratifying certain conventions, and,
in the light of the replies received, to study the possible modifi-
cations that might be introduced into the convention in order to
obtain the ratification of a considerahle majority. Acting upon
this Resolution the Governing Board of the Pan-Amencan Union
approved the report of a special committee in which it was recom-
mended that special representatives of the Pan-American Union

be appointed in each country "to expedite the study, approval
and ratification" of inter-American treaties and conventions. The STATEMEXT ORGANIZATION OF AYERICAS STATES '9

deposit of ratification. It is clear that if a large number of States
were to object to the reservation the ratification of the particular
State would be of little or no valu; and at a given point it might
be said that the ratifying State uras for practical purposes not a
party to the multilateral treaty but merely a party to a numbcr
of bilateral treatieswith the States accepting its reservation.
Experience is lacking from which conclusions might be drawn.
As a matter of fact, down to the present time there has only
been one case in nrhich a State already a party to a treaty has
objected to a reservation made by a State subsequently ratifying
the treaty. In1932, pnor to the adoption of the Lima Resolution
caliing for previous consultation in respect to proposed reserv-

ations, the Dominican Republic deposited its ratification of the
Havana Convention on Consular Agents accompanied by several
reservations which had not been discussed or agreed to at thc
time the conventions were formulated. Upon receiving notice of
the reservations the Departmcnt of State of the United States
informed the Director-General of the Pan-American Union that
it considered the reservations as in the nature of amendments
which would deprive the Convention of a large part of its value
and that they were therefore unacceptable, and that the United
States did not regard the Convention, thus ratified, to be in effect
between the United States and the Dominican Republic. Noiie
of the other signatory States made objection to the Dominicaii

reservations, so that the Convention came into effect between
them and the Dominican Republic in the more limited forin
determined by the reservations.
The practice of the Pan-American Union in the matter of the
deposit of ratifications to which a reservation is attached differs
from that of the United Nations Secrctariat in one significant
matter. The Pan-American Union procedure permits a State to
proceed with its ratification in spite of the fact that one or more
of the signatory States may object to the reservation, whereas
the procedure followed by the Secretary-General of the United
Xations has the effect of preventing the particular State froni

becoming a party to the convention if any single State among
those which have already ratified voices its disapproval of the
proposed reservation. In a memorandum submitted by the Uru-
guayan delegation to thesixth Committee of the General Assembly,
the practice of the United Nations in thus permitting any single
ratifying State to excliide the particular State proposing a reserv-
ation from participation in the convention is described as
"extending the veto" into the system of multilateral treaties by
giving to individual States the right to reject reservations which
the great majority of the other parties to the convention might
be willing to accept. On the other hand, the Secretary-General
of the United Nations, in recognition of the desirability of keeping
to a minimum the number of States required to give unanimons20 STATEMENT ORGASIZATION OF AMERICAX STATES
consent to a reservation, has modified the earlier practice of the
League of Nations by confining the power ta reject the reservations

to those States which have established their immediate concern
in the treaty by themselves becoming parties.
The Pan-American Union procedure is believed to be best
adapted, within the limited inter-American regional system, to
increasing the number of ratifications and widening the use of
treaties both for purposes of a contractual character and for the
development of general principles of international law. Thus far
it has not had the effect, to which it might logically give rise, of
creating confusion in respect to the obligations of the various

treaties which have been entered into. Whether the procedure is
as well adapted to the larger organization of the United Nations,
in which law-making treaties may be expected to play a larger
part than in the inter-American regional system, is a question
apart 'from the scope of the present memorandum.

December 14, 1950.2. EXPOSÉ ÉCRIT DU GOUVERNEMEXT DE L'UNION DES
RÉPUBLIQUES SOCIALISTES SOVIÉTIQUES

I.'AMBASSADEUR DE L'UKION DES REPUBLIQUES SOCIALISTES
SOVIÉTIQUES AUX PAYS-BAS AU GREFFIER DE LA COUR

Monsieur le Greffier,

En réponse à l'adresse de la Cour internationalde Justice,
datée du ICIdécembre 1950, en ce qui concerne la question des
réservesà la Convention du génocide, le Gouvernement soviétique
juge nécessaire d'indiquer que son point de vue sur la question
des réserves aux traités multilatéraux a déjà étéexprimé par ses
représentantsà la Vnlesession de 1'Ass~mblgénérale.Le Gouver-

nement soviétiqueestime que chaque Etat, se basant sur les pnn-
cipes de souveraineté, a le droit incontestable de faire une réserve
à n'importe quel traité. Une conséquence,juridique de cette réserve
est que le traité est en vigueur entre un Etat qui a fait une réserve
et tous les autres participants du traité, exceptéla partie du traité
que la réserve concerne.

La Haye, le 13 janvier 1951.
(Signé )AITSEW.3.WKITTEN STATEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE

HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF THE JORDAN

THE 211NIST13R FOFOREIG ANFAIRS OF THE HASHEMITE KINGDOII
OF THE JOKI>AN TO THE RECISTRAR OF THE COURT

9th January, 1951.

Sir,
\Vith reference to your note 12209 dated Decembe1, 1950,
1 have the honour to inform you that the Government of the

Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan accepts without any reserv-
ation the complete text of the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Please. etc.4. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Introductory

The General Assembly of the United Nations, at its fifth session,
by Resolution dated November 16, 1950 (U.N. Officia1 Records,
General Assembly, 5th session, A/r517, 17 November, 1950),
decided to submit to the International Court of Justice, with a
request for an advisory opinion, in so far as concerns the Conven-
tion on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,
certain legal questions relating to the effect of reservations made
by a State ratifying or acceding to the Convention, if such reserv-
ations are agreed to by some States but are objected to by States
parties, States signatories, or States entitled to become parties,
to the Convention.
The Resolution of the General Assembly, in so far as itpertains
to the submission of certain questions to the International Court
of Justice, readç as follows :

"The General Assembly,
Having ezamined the report of the Secretary-General regarding
reservations to multilateral conventions,
Considering that certain reservations to the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide have been
objected to by some States,
Considering that the International LawrCommission is studying
the whole suhject of the law of treaties, including the question
of reservations,
Considering that. different views regarding reservations have
been expressed during the fifth session of the General Assembly,
and particularly in the Sixth Committee,
I. Requeststhe International Court of Justice to give an advisory
opinion on the following questions :
In so far as concerns the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the event of a State
ratifying or acceding to the Convention subject to a reservation
made eitlier on ratification or on accession,onrsignature followed
by ratification:
'1. Can the reserving State be regarded as being a party to
the Convention while still maintaining its reservation if the
reservation is ohjected to by one or more of the parties to
the Convention but not by others?

II. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, what is the
effect of the reservation as between the reserving State and:
(a) The parties which object to the reservation ?
(6) Those which accept it?24 WRITTES STATEMEST OF THE U.S.A.

III. What would be the legal effect as regards the answer to
question 1 if an objection to a reservation is made :
(a) By a signatory which has not yet ratified ?
(h) By a State entitled to sign or accede but which has not
yet done so ?"

The balance of the Resolution is addressed to the International
Law Commission and the Secretary-General. and reads :

"2. Invites the International Law Commission :

(a) In the course of its work on the codification of the law of
treaties, to study the question of reservations to multilateral
conventions both from the point of view of codification and from
priority to this study and to report thereon, especially as regardsve
multilateral conventions of which the Secretary-General is the
depositary, this report to be considered by the General Assembly
at its sixth session ;

(b) In connexion with tliis study, to take account of al1 the
views expressed during the fifth session of the General Assembly, ,
and particularly in the Sixth Committee ;
'3.Instrzrctsthe Secretary-General, pending the rendering of the
advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, the receipt
of:a report from the International Law Commission and further
action by the General Assembly, to follow his prior practice with
respect to the receipt of reservations to conventions and with
respect to the notification and solicitation of approvals thereof,
al1 without prejudice to the legal effect of objections to reserv-
ations to conventions as it may be recommended by the General
Assembly at its sixth session."

The Government of the United States considers thatthe questions
submitted to the International Court of Justice should be answered
in the light of international practices and through the reasoned
application of generally accepted principles of international law,
for example, the principle of consent as an element of contract

and the principle of purpose and intention as essential elements
in determinations regarding treaties. As the discussion that follows
is intended to bring out in more detail, the Genocide Convention
defines the international crime of genocide and obligates States
to take measures to prevent and punish genocide within their
respective territories. No State, of course, should be permitted to
alter the extent or nature of the obligation of another State under
the Convention without its consent. Neither should any State be
permitted to prevent other parties and the General Assembly
itself, by encouraging the accession of the maximum number of
States, from securing for themselves and for the international

community the widest possible agreement to give cffect to the
Convention's purpose of preventing genocide, even though in WRITTES STATEJIEST OF THE U.S.A. 25
some cases the agreement may be a qualified one. Since the Genocide

Convention relates pnmarily to prevention and pnnishment of
crime within the borders of each State, the types of problems it
creates for a particular country, and the types of reservations that
are to be expected will tend to narrow the obligations exclusively
of the reserving State because they will for the most part relate
to interna1 adjustments in that country and need not affect the
obligations of other parties. From the terms, nature, history and
purpose of the Genocide Convention, it follows that States entitled
to ratify or accede may do so subject to reservations even if these
are objected to by one or more other parties to the Convention.
While in the absence of a contrary intention, an objecting State
would not be bound by the Convention vis-ù-vis the reserving
State, and a State not objecting would be bound by the Convention
as modified by the reservation vis-ù-vis the reserving State. the

intention of the parties and the circumstances of a particular casc
would necessarily be controlling factors.
From what has been said, it of course follows that neither a signa-
tory State nor a State entitled to accede could by its objection to
a reservation prevent the reserving State from becoming a party
to the Convention upon acceptance of its reservation by one or
more parties. It should be pointed out that even were the Genocide
Convention, contrary to the view here expressed, conceived to be
of a nature requiring that reservations be acceptedby al1the parties,
only a State itself already a party to the Convention should be
permitted, by objecting to the reservation, to prevent the reserving
State from becoming a party.

1. The Genocide Convention

The Geiiocide Convention resultecl from the inhuman and bar-
barous practices which prevailed in certain countries prior to and
during World War II, when entire religious, racial and national
minonty groups were threatened \rrith and subjected to deliberate
extermination. The practice of genocide has occurred throughout
human history. The Roman persecution of the Christians, the
Turkish massacres of Armenians, the extermination of millions
of Jews and Poles by the Xazis arc outstanding examples of the

crime of genocide. This was the background when the General
Assembly of the United Nations consiclered the problem of genocide.
Not once, but twice, that body declared unanimously that the
practice of genocide is criminal under iiiternational law and that
States ought to take steps to prevent and punish genocide.
In 1946 the First General Assembly declared by Resolution 96 (1)
that genocide was a crime under iiiternational law and entrusted
to the Economic and Social Council the task of drafting a convention
on the subject. An Ad Hoc Committee on Genocide \vas consti-
tuted by the Economic and Social Council for this purpose.26 WRITTES STATEMENT OF THE U.S.A.

A Convention drawn up by that Committee and amended by the
General Assembly was unanimously approved by the General
Assembly in Paris on Becember g, 1948. No express provision \vas
made for the handling or effect of reservations.
The Convention provides, in Article XI :

for signature on behalf of any Alemberof the United Nations and,
of any non-member State to which an invitation to sign has been
addressed by the General Assembly."

While open for signature under Article XI, the Convention was
signed on behalf of forty-three States, with reservations in the
cases of four of those States (Byelorussian S.S.R., Czechoslovakia,
Ukrainian S.S.R., and U.S.S.H.) with respect to substantive provi-
sions of the Convention.

It is also provided in ArticleXI :
"After I January, 1950,the present Convention may be acceded
to on behalf of any Member of the United Kations and of any
non-member State which has received an invitation as aforesaid."

Article XI provides further that instmments of ratification and
instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-
General of the United Nations.
By Resolution 368 (IV) of December 3, 1949. the General Assem-
bly further implemented the intention reflected in the Convention
itself that the maximum number of States should be parties to the
Convention by extcnding an invitation to sign and ratify or to
accedc to the Convention to non-member States that were or might
become active Nembers of one or more of the specialized agencies
of the United Nations or parties to the Statute of the International
Court of Justice.

According to information supplied by the Secretary-General
of the United Nations. instruments of ratification and instruments
of accession were received by the Secretary-General, up to and
including October 14, 1950, as follows :

Ethiopia, ratification, JulyI, 1949.
Australia, ratification, July 8, 1949,
Nonvay, ratification, July 22. 1949,
Iceland, ratification, August 29, 1949,
Ecuador, ratification, December 21, 1949,
Panama, ratification, January II, 1950,
Guatemala, ratification, January 13, 1950,
Israel, ratification, Rlarch g, 1950,
Monaco, accession, hlarch 30, 1950,
Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan, accession, April 3, 1950,
Liberia, ratification, June 9, 19.50,
Philippines, ratification, July 6, 1950 (with reservations),
Saudi Arabia, accession, July 13, 1950, TVRITTES STATEMENT OF THE U.S.A. 27

Bulgaria, accession, July 14, 1950 (withreservations),
Turkey, accession, July 31,1950,
Vietnam, accession, August II, 1950,
Yugoslavia, ratification, August 29, 1950.

El Salvador, ratification, September 28, 1950.
Ceylon, accession, October 12, 1950,
France, ratification, October 14, 1950,
Haiti, ratification, October 14, 1950.
Camhodia, accession, Octoher 14, 1950.
Costa Rica, accession, Octoher 14, 1950,
Korea, accession, October 14, 1950.

In Article XIII of the Convention it is provided :
"On the day when the first twenty instmments of ratification
or accessionhave been deposited, the Secretaq-General shall draw
up a procès-verbalaiid transmit a copy thereof to each Member
of the United Nations and to eachof the non-member States con-
templated in Article XI.
The present Convention shall come into force on the ninetieth
day following the date of deposit of the twentieth instrument of
ratification or accession.
Any ratification or accession effected subsequent. to the latter
date shall become effective on the ninetieth day following the
deposit of the instrument of ratification or accession."
On October 14, 1950, five States deposited instruments of ratfi-
cation or accession, bringing to twenty-four the number of instm-
ments of ratification or accession received by the Secretary-
General. Since of the twenty-four, only two (Philippines, Bulgaria)
were submitted with reservations, the Secretary-General was able,
without determining whether the instrument of ratification or
accession of a reserving State should be counted among the first
taenty instruments, to draw up a $rocès-uerbalin accordance with

Article XIII. He was also able to announce that the Convention
would come into force on January 12, 1951. the ninetieth day
after October 14,1950.
Pnor to October 14, 1950, however, the Secretary-General was
confronted with a possible problem under Article XIII in that, to
fix the date of deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification
or accession, he might need to know whether and under what
conditions to count among the twenty those instruments of ratifi-
cation or accession' that \vere accompanied by reservations. It
was with this possibility before him that the Secretary-General
proposed the question of reservations to multilateral conventions
for inclusion in the agenda of the fifth session of the Generalssem-
bly, and submitted a report on the depositary practices followed
by him with respect to reservations to multilateral conventions

(A/1372,2o September, 1950). pointing out in the report the current
importance of the problem in connexion witb the Genocide
Convention.
328 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.S.A

According to the Report of the Secretary General, it appears
to have heen his practice (a) in the case of a convention which has
not entered into force, and with respect to which reservations have
been made by a State at the time of signature, ratification, or

accession, to deposit the instrument of ratification or accession of
that State only when consent to the reservations has been given
by al1 States which have ratified or acceded to the convention up
to thedate of itsentryinto force, and (b) in the case of a convention
which has entered into force, and with respect to \\,hich reservations
have been made by a State at the time of signature, ratification, or
accession, to deposit the instrument of ratification or accession of
that State only when consent to the reservatioiis has been given
by al1States which have theretofore ratified or acceded.
For the better understanding of the procedure followed by the
Secretary-General, particularly as it relatcs tothe Genocide Conveii-

tion, it is worth while to direct attention to certain portions of the
above-mentioned Report, inter aliaa, s follows (pp. 3, 4 and 19) :
"2. IVhile it is universally recognized that the consent of the
other governments concerned must be souglit before they can ,be
bound bv the terms of a reservation. there has not been unauimitv
either asto the procedure to be folloied by a depositary in obtaining
the necessarv consent or as to the leml effect of a State objecting
to a reservation.
-!'l.1.~.iicstion lins :ir:.luinccurrciit iinporr:tnctIIIroilnvxiun
w1i11 rt~t!Cotivcii~ion %,II111~:I~rcvc~itiun:it!<l3unisI~!~lt!~tf t11c
Cririic of (;LIIOCI~I \ .III~IIIIof~rSti!~ejII:I\tu diitcIII.I;Irç,er\.-
ations as to specific articles of that Convention at the time of
signature, and certain other States have incorporated reservations
in their instruments of ratification or accession. Other States
having recorded their dissent from some of the terms of these
reservations, but without its appeariiig that al1 the interested
parties necessarily foresee the same legal consequences deriving
from these dissents, the Secretary-General has felt it his duty to
place clearly before the General Assembly, for its approval and
advice, the principles which he has considered necessary to follow
in the interests botli of an efficient performance of depositary
functions and of the maximum usefulness of multilateral con-
ventions in the development of international law.
..................... ...
1
5. In the absence of stipulations in a particular convention
regarding the procedure to be followedin the making and accepting
of reservations, the Secretary-General, in his capacity as depositary,
has held to the broaù principle that a reservation may be definitively
accepted oiily alter it has been ascertained that there is no objection
onthe part of any of the other States directly concemed. If the
convention is already in force, the consent, express or implied, 1s
date on which the reservation is offered. Should the convention
not yet have entered into force, an instrumeiit of ratification,or
accession offered with a reservation can be accepted in definitive WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.S.A.
29
deposit only with the consent of al1 States which have ratified
or acceded by the date of entry into force.
6. Tlius, the Secretary-General, on receipt of a signature or
instrument of ratification or accession, subject to a reservation,
to a convention not yet in force, has formaiiy notiiïed the reserv-
ation to al1 States which may becorne parties to the convention.
In so doiiig, he has also asked those States which have ratified
or acceded to the convention to inform hirn of their attitude
towards the reservation, at the same time advising them that,
unless they notify him of objections thereto prior tu a certain
date-nonnally the date of entry into force of the convention-it
would be his understanding that they had accepted the reservation.
States ratifying or acceding without express objection, subsequent
to notice of a reservation, are advised of the Secretary-General's
vention werehaalready in force when the reservation was received,
the procedure would not differ substantially, except that a reason-
able tirne for the receipt of objections would be aliowed before
tacit consent could properly be assumed.

........................
46. The mle adhered to by the Secretary-General as depositary
rnay accord'ingly be stated in the following manner :
A State may make a reservation when signing, ratifying or
acceding to a convention, prior to its entry into force, only with
the consent of al1 States which have ratified or acceded thereto
up to the date of entry into force ; and may do so after the date
of entry into force only with the consent of al1States whicli have
theretofore ratified or acceded."

II. Applicable Internafiottal Law

The advisory opinion by the Internàtional Court of Justice on
the questions presented by the General Assembly in the Resolution
above mentioned will, of course, have an important bearing on.the
effectiveness of the Genocide Convention, as weU as on the effective
performance of depositary functions by the Secretary-General.
It is necessary to consider to some extent the principles and
practices xvhich have been foiiowed up to this time in regard to
reservations to multilateral treaties generally. So far as possible,

however, it is desirable to address ourselves primarily to the ques-
tions concerning the procedure which isbest adapted to, and should
apply in, the case of the Genocide Convention, both as to reserva-
tions made heretofore and as to reservations which may be made
hereafter.
We need not concern ourselves, at this point, with any question
with respect to reservations in the case of a treaty which contains
express stipulations regarding the admissibiiity of reservations.
It should be inferred that the comments herein are, as it were,
prefaced by a clause reading "unless othenvise provided in the
treaty". WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.S.A.
30
In addition, it is important to note that not al1declarations accom-
panying ratifications or accessions constitute reservations. One
proposed definition for the term "reservation" is that it is "a
formai declaration by which a State when signing, ratifying or
acceding to a treaty, specifies as a condition of its willingness to

hecome a party to the treaty certain terms which will limit the
effectof thetreaty in so far as it may apply in the relations of that
State with the other State or States which may be parties to the
treaty" (Research in International Law, III-Law of Treaties, 29
Amcrican Journal of International Law, Supp. (1935) 653, 843)
(underscoring'supplied). In its detailed explanation of this proposed
definition, this commentary States, at page 857 :
"Only ifthe terms of the stipulation attached by a State to its
signature or ratification of, or accession to, a treaty are of such
a nature that they will, when in force, limit the effect of the
treaty as hetween that State and the other party or parties to the
treaty, is it a reservation undex the above definition. The phrase
'limit the effect' impljesa diminution or restriction of the conse-
quences which would ordinarily flow from the legal relationship
established by the treaty if there were no reservation. Therefore,
if a particular stipulation attached hy a State to its acceptance
of a treaty does not envisage such a diminution or restriction of
the consequenceswhich would normally result from the relationship
established by the treaty hetween it and the other party or parties,
then it isnot a reservation as that tem is used in this convention.
With this in mind, it becomes evident that certain types of
conditions may fall within Our definition, while others may not ;
in other words, although every reservation is a condition, every
condition is not necessarily a reservation. It iscessas. to examine
the terms of the condition in each case in order to determine
whether or not it is a reservation."
In many cases, of course, it is not easy to determine whether a
declaration accompanying a ratification is a true reservation. It

seems clear, however, that a declaration containing terms which,
in the view of a competent tribunal, or with reasonable limitations,
the depositary, do not "limit the effect of a treaty" is not a reserva-
tion even though it may have been designated as such. (Id., p. 862.)
Despite theoretical statements which have at times been made
by certain jurists, publicists, research groups, or students on the
subject of reservations to multilateral treaties, it is believed that
a stndy of international procedures makes it eminently clear that,
apart from a rnle that a State has the right to make reservations
which it deems desirable and the rule that any other State bas a
CO-equal right to determine for itself whether or not it shall 'be
bound by such reservations, there has not been such a degree of
uniformity in practice or universality in acceptance of principles
as to jnstify the conclusion that thereare fixed or settled rules
respecting the jundicai status of reservations to multilateral

treaties or respecting the extent of or limitations on the authority WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.S.A. 3I

of depositaries in connexion with the receipt and deposit of
instmments containing reservations.
For that reason, references to examples of practices which have
been followed can he hardly more than guides to the International
Court of Justice in reaching a decision concerning the advisory
opinion that should be giveii in respect of the Genocide Convention.
The Court may well conclude, after consideration of this matter,
that the character and purposes of the Genocide Convention and
the exigencies of international relations, including the paramount
need for CO-operativerelations so far as possible between as many
States as possible, justify a liberal rule respecting reservations to
the Genocide Convention, a rule which will promote maximum

acceptance hy the greatest possible number of States of the obliga-
tions defined hy the Convention and will avoid either a general
undennining of the standards accepted by many without reserva-
tion, or imposing any new obligations without the necessary consent
of al1upon whom they fall.
Such a rule would he hased on the consent, implied or express,
of those who become parties, upon their intentions, and upon the
intentions of the framers of the document-in this case the General
Assemhly of the United Nations. Itwould be appropriate, tberefore,
to the Genocide Convention, and would not need to have universal
applicability. Perhaps it would be better to view the rule as merely
a particularization of general legal principles with respect to the
Genocide Convention, and to leave to the future the regeneraliza-

tion of this and similar cases into one or more rules of lau~which
could apply to cases involving similar circumstances. An approach
in this ligbt would further the development of international law
regarding Genocide, would solve immediate problems facing the
Secretary-General, and would encourage the growth of sound mles
and practices with respect to reservations, to which ends both
the Court and the International Law Commission have been invited
to contribute.

III. Practices and Tlreoriesconsidered

(a) Practice of the League of Nations
References are often found, as in the Secretary-General's report
ahove mentioned, to the report which the Committee of Experts
of the League of Nations on the Progressive Codification of Interna-
tional Law submitted to the Council of the League and in which it
is stated (League of Nations Oficial Joz~rnal, 1927 p,.881) :

"In order that any reservation whatever may be validly made
in regard to a clause of the treaty, it is essential that thisrv-
ation should be accepted by al1 the contracting parties, as would
have been the case if it had been put fonvard in the course of the
negotiations. If not, the reservati'on, likethe signature to which
it is attached, isnuIl and void."32 \VRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.S.A.

Leaving aside for the moment the question whether signatones
might qualify under League of Nations practice as "contracting
parties" for the purpose of the rnle formulated by the experts, it
should be stated that the rnle seems generaily to have been followed
hy the Secretariat of the League. In this connexion it is relevant to
recall that the League of Nations did not achieve the same degree
of universality of membership as the United Nations, and that
there was probably a little less of a problem in developing conven-

tions under League auspices with respect to the difficulties arising
from the cultural, geographic, legal and other.differences among
the Members. However this may be, League practice is supported
on the basis of some theoretical arguments and is described as an
application of "the unanimity rnle".
It is argued that a multilateral treaty is one whole and single
offer, and that a reservation is a counter-offer which, before it can
Vary any terms of the treaty, must be accepted by al1the offerors.
This argument presupposes that there is some obligation binding
the offerors not independently or bilateraily to Vary the contract
terms inter se or vis-d-vis an offeree. Whether or not such a limita-
tion exists depends, of course, on the intention of al1the offerors,
not the assertions of one, and in decidimg the question the same
general considerations must play a part as have been outlined

heretofore.
Again, it is argued that an essential element of the cousideration
inducing acceptance is the prospect of unqualified acceptance by
al1other parties, and that anyone offenng a less acceptance can be
rejected as a party by any other party. Again, however, this is a
question of the intention of the parties and again the same general
considerations must play a part.
An illustration of clear expression of intention will be found in
the draft convention on the law of treaties prepared by the Harvard
Researchin International Law. In explanation of the express provi-
sion for the "unanimity mle" which was included in that draft
convention, the authors advanced substantially the arguments
above referred to :

"When a State proposes to make a reservation to a multipartite
treaty, whether at signature, ratitication, or accession, it seeks in
effectto write into the treaty at that time 'certain terms which
will limit the effect of the treaty in so far as it may apply in the
relations of that State with the other State or States' which are
or which become parties to the treaty. It proposes, in effect, to
insert in the treaty a provision which will operate to exempt it
from certain of the consequences which would otherwise devolve
upon it from the treaty, while leaving the other States which are
or which becomeparties to the treaty fnlly subject to those conse-
quencesin their relationsinter sand possiblyeven in their relations
a Stateishould be pennitted to do this only with the consent of
allother States wliich are partie...and this because, as has.been WRITTEF STATEMENT OF THE U.S.A. 33

said, States are willing in general to assume obligations under a
participating I'owers arc prepared to act in the same way andr
that general benefitwill thus result'.... Consequently. were a State
permitted to write a rcservation into a multipartite treaty over
the objection of any State already a party to the treaty (i.e. a
signatory or acceding State actually bound by the treaty), the
latter Statemieht reeard the consideration which ~rom~ted it to
become a partfas soYfarimpaired by the reservatioi tha'tit would
denounce the treaty and withdraw therefrom ...since a choice
must be made, reasin and the necessity for preserving multipartite
treaties asseful and effectiveinstmments of international co-oper-
ation indicate that tlic preference should be given to the States
which find the treaty satisfactory as it stands, and that thencon-
venience, if any, of rion-participation in the treaty should fa11upon
the State which seeks to restrict its effectiveness by reservations."
(Research in International Law, III-Law of Treaties,29 American
Journal of International Law, Supp. (1935)653, 870-871. Refer-
ences to States not parties have been omitted from the quotation
as the "signatory rule" is discussed at a later point in this state-
ment.)

In the case of the Genocide Convention, however, and in obvious
contrast to the Harvard Research draft convention, or the League
Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism of
1937. there is no express, or indeed implied, statement of intention
or formulation of rules to require that au the parties consent to
each reservation. In fact, the records of the Ad Hoc Committee on
Genocide and of the General Assembly fail. to reveal any decision
to adopt or reject any rule at any time.
Whereas application of theunanimity rule tothe GenocideConven-
tion would be completely inappropriate to the nature and purpose
of the Convention, it should be understood that in contrast to
the Genocide Convention there are certain kinds of treaties which
have a substantive cha.racter justifying the recognition of a right

of the parties, by objecting to proposed reservations which, in
their view, would nullify the purpose and effect of the treaty, to
prevent the reserving State from becoming a party. The "organiza-
tional" type of treaty might be cited as an example, that is, a
treaty which establishes an international organization and sets
forth the constitution or charter of the organization in terms so
finely balanced and interrelated that a reservation disturbing that
situation would seriously affect the powers, functions and procedures
of the organization. In the case of such a treaty there would come
a point at which a r<:servation, accepted by some parties and
rejected by others, would foster genuine confusion by creating a
special new set of rules among the reserving States and those
accepting the reservation, and as a practical matter impair if not
prevent attainment of the purpose of the treaty-namely, the estab-
lishment and functioning of a single efficient organization. .,34 WRITTEN STATEXENT OF THE U.S.A.
It is perfectly obvious, however, that the Genocide Convention

is not an organizational treaty. Its purposes will be advanced, not
by restricting the number of States parties to it but by expanding
their number, and the consideration that the organization not be
destroyed in the process simply has no relevance in the case of
the Genocide Convention.

(b) Liberal Practice

The practice of permitting a reserving State to becomc a party
to a convention, despite rejection of its reservation by one or more
parties, has probably received more express sanction iii the Organ-
ization of American States than the contrary practice received in
the League of Xations. Instances of approval and adoption of
this practice iilustrate its flexibility and importance as a technique
designed in many, although necessarily not in all, instances (any
more than in the case of the League practice) to achieve the under-
lying purpose of the convention involved and the intention of the
parties.
In general, it iswell recognized that, because of constitutional,

legal or other obstacles, a State may find it impossible to become a
party to a particular treaty unless it can do so subject to a resen7-
ation. Its reservation may affect procedural matters or it may affect
substantive provisions. The questioii then arises as to whether,
and to what extent, such State may be permitted to become a
party to the treaty subject to the proposed reservation. This
necessarily involves the broader question, as applied to most treaties,
as to whether it is a primary objective that as many States as
possible become parties to the fullest possible extent and in rela-
tion with the greatest possible number of other States. If such
be the primary object in the case of a particular treaty, then it
would seem to be desirable, while avoiding any positive inducements
to the making of reservations, to follow a procedure that will make
it possible for every Stateto give effect tothe treaty even if it must

make reservations which are not acceptable to some States although
acceptable to other States.
In 1927. at Rio de Janeiro, the International Commission of
American Jurists prepared a draft of provisions which included a
provision reading as follows :

"In international conventions celebrated between different
States, a reservation made by oneof them in the act of ratification
affectsonly the clausein question and the Stateto which itrefers."

In a Convention on Treaties adopted at the Havana Conference
in 1928 there was incorporated the following provision (Report of
the Delegates of the United States of America to the Sizth Inter-
American Conference of American States, Havana, Jannary 16-
February 20, 1928, p. 198) : WRITTES STATEMENT OP THE U.S.A. 35

"In international treaties celebrated between diHerent States,
a reservation made by one of them in the act of ratification affects
the other contracting States with the State making the reservation."

The Havana Convention has entered into force with respect to
seven of the twenty-one Amencan Republics, not including the
United States.
The Governing Board of the Pan-American Union on May 4,

1932. approved a Resolution setting forth rulcs ta govern the
procedure of the Pan-American Union in the exercise of its functions
as depositary for treaties and diplomatic instruments in relation
thereto. Inasmuch as that.Reso1ution deals with the same twofolcl
problem with which we are presently concemed, namely, the facili-
tating of the exercise of depositary functions and the effect of
reservations, it is setforth below (Eighth International Conference
O/ Anzerican States, Sfiecial Handbook for the Use of the Delegates,
Pan-American Union (1938). pp. 57-58) :

"The procedure to be followed by the Pan-American Union
with respect .ta the deposit of ratifications, in accordance with
Article 7 of the Convention on the Pan-American Union, signed
nt the Sixth International Conference of American States, provided
the treaty does not stipulate otherwise, shall be as follows :
r. To assume the custody of the original instrument.

z.To furnish copies thereof ta al1 the signatory goveriimeiits.
3. To receive the instmments of ratification of the signatory
States, including the reservations.
4. To communicate the deposit of ratifications to the otlier
signatory States and, in the case of reservation, ta inforrn them
thereof.
j.To receive the replies of the other signatory States as ta
whether or not they accept the reservations.
6. To inform al1 the States, signatory ta the treaty, if the
reservations have or have not been accepted.

With respect ta the juridical status of treaties ratified witli
reservations, which have not been accepted, the Governing Board
of the Pan-American Union understands that :

I.The treaty shall be in force, in the form in which it &as
signed, as between those countries which ratify it without resenr-
ations, in the terms in which it was originally drafted and
signed.
z. It shall be in force as between the Governments which ratify
it with reservations and the signatory States which accept the
reservations in the form in which the treaty may be modified by
said reservations.
3. It shaü not be in force between a Government which may
have ratified with reservations and another which may have
already ratified, and which does not accept such reservations."36 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.S.A.

The rnles set forth in the Resolution qnoted above were intended
to be provisional. Itwas considered that the matter should be dealt
with more conclusively by the Pan-American Conferences.
The general question of the juridical statns of treaties ratified
with reservations was considered at the Pan-Amencan Conference
held at Lima in December 1938, but definitive commitments on the
subject were not conclnded. Nevertheless, in a Resolution relating
to the preparation of mnltilateral treaties, the Conference declared,

inter alia, as follows (Final Act of the Eighth International Confer-
cnce of American States, p. 48) :
"2. In the event of adherence or ratification with reservations,
the adhering or ratifying State shall transmit to the Pan-American
Union, prior to the deposit of the respective instrument, the text
of the reservation which it proposes to formulate, so that the
Pan-American Union may inform the signatory States thereof
and ascertain whether they accept it or not. The State which
proposes to adhere to or ratifythe Treaty, may do it or not,aking
into account the observations which may be made with regard
to its reservations by the signatory States."

It willbe observed that, in accordance with the procedure devised
at Pan-American Conferences, the door is left open for a State to
become a party to a treaty with reservations, at least as between
that State and other States which accept the reservations. The

procedure has advantages when viewed in the light of the desir-
ability of permitting as many States as possible to become parties.
It is well worth considering whether similar principles should be
applied to al1 treaties of a character to which they are readily
adaptable.
A familiar example of the manner in which the so-called Pan-
American rnle has been applied is that of the reservations made
by the Dominican Republic in ratifying the Convention on Coiisular
Agents adopted at the Havana Conference on February 20, 1928
(155 League of Nations Treaty Series 291). The instrument of
ratification of the Dominican Republic with respect to the Conven-
tion was transmitted to the Pan-American Union for deposit on

April 22, 1932. Up to that time, five States had become parties
ta the Convention. The Dominican ratification was made subject
to certain reservations affecting substantive provisions of the Con-
vention. The Pan-American Union deposited the instrument and
transmitted certified copies to the other signatories. On Septem-
ber 27, 1932, the Director-General of the Union was informed by
the United States Govemment (Department of State, Treaty
Infornaation Bzdl~tin,No. 36 (November 1932), p. 23) that

"....The reservations in respect to the excision of Articles 12,
15, 16, 18, 20 and 21, being of the nature of amendments which
would deprive the Convention of a large part of its value, are
unacceptable to'the Executive and will not be. laid before the WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.S.A. 37

Senate of the United States whose advice and consent to their
acceptance would in any event be required. Consequently, the
Govemment of the United States of America does not regard the
Convention as ratified by the Dominican Republic to be,in effect
between the United States of America and that Republic."
A copy of the communication from the Department of State of
the United States was sent by the Pan-Amencan Union to the
other signatories. None of the other signatories objected to the
Dominican reservations, and it has heen inferred that they assented
impliedly to the reservations, so that the Convention, as modified

by the Dominican reservations, is deemed to be in effect as between
the Dominican Repnblic and all other parties except the United
States.
There has been some general intemational application of the
procedure ontlined above. For example, the Government of the
Soviet Union notified the Secretariat of the League of Nations
on March 28, 1935, of the intention of the Soviet Govemment, in
adhering to the International Convention for Facilitating the
International Circulation of Films of an Educational Character,
signed at Geneva on October II, 1933 (155 League of Nations
Treaty Series332). to include a reservation. The Secretariat trans-
mitted copies of this notification to all signatories and parties.
By the end of 1936, only six of the States to which the notification

had been sent had replied, five of them accepting the Soviet
reservation and the other (Chile) refusing to give its assent. The
Soviet Govemment then proposed that "the Convention should
not bind Chile in relation to the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub-
lics", and that the Convention, consequently, should not apply as
between Chile and the Soviet Union while applying as between
the Soviet Union and the States which had accepted the reservation.
The Chilean Government agreed to this proposa1 and the Soviet
Minister for Foreign Affairs informed the Secretary-General of the
League. by a communication dated February 16, 1937, as follows
(Department of State, Treaty Information Bulletin, No. 90
(March 1937). P. 14) :

"In these circumstances, and in view of the considerableinterval
which has already elapsed since the dispatch of my letter men-
tioned above, 1 am of the opinion that if no other State signatory
to the Convention declares itself opposed to the reservation in
question by March 28th. 1937.the reservation should be deemed
to have been accepted by al1 the signatories except Chile, and
that deposit of the declaration conceming the forma1 accession
of the U.S.S.R. ta this international agreement should then follow."
Later, however, according to information furnished by the
Secretanat of the League, the Swiss Govemment notified the
Secretary-General that it could not accept the Soviet reservation
and the Iranian Govemment gave notice that, inasmuch as the
Convention made no provision for .reservations (which, incident-3s WRITTES STATEIEST OF THE U.S.A.

a, treaties rarely do) and the Convention had already been
approved by the Iranian Parliament, Iran was not able to express
its views concerning the Soviet reservation and reserved the right
to do so later. (Id., No. gr (April 1937). p. II.)
Apparently, the Geneva Convention of 1933 was considered as
being in effect between the Soviet Union and the States which
had assented to the Soviet resenration. As an example of inter-
national procedure, this reveals the trend, especially during the
past two decades, and even outside the Pan-American region,
toward considering that, under certain circumstances, a State
ratifying or acceding to a treaty with reservations may become a
party to the treaty as between it and other States assenting to

the reservations, either expressly or tacitly, while not a party as
between it and other States which reject the reservations.
More recent evidence of the trend toward internatioiial adoption,
with some modifications, of the rule followed among the American
Republics is to be found in the provisions of Articl19 of the Conven-
tion on the Declaration of Death of Nissing Persons, opened for
accession at Lake Success on April 6,.19jo (U.X., Official Records,
General Assembly, United Nations Conference on Declaration of
Death of lllissing Persons;A/Conf. 119).wherein it is provided :

"Any State may subject its accessionto the present Convention
to reservations which may be formulated only at the time of
accession.
If a contracting State does not accept the reservations which
another State may have thus attached to its accession, the former
may. provided it does so within ninety days from the date on
which the Secretary-General will have transmitted the reservations
to it, notify the Secretary-General that it considersuch accession
reservation and the State not accepting it.e St111such case, the
Convention shall be considered as not being in force between snch
two States."

As explained in the report of the Secretary-General hereinbefore
mentioned, the above-quoted provisions were incorporated in that
Convention as an exceptional measure in view of the special nature
of the Convention, and especially since it dealt with matters of
private international law. (See U.N., Officia1 Records, General
Assembly, United Nations Conference on Declaration of Death
of lllissing Persons A/Conf. I/SR IO,pp. S.9, IO.)

It is fair to admit that even the liberal rule must have some
reasonable limitations. Limitations may, of course, be incorporated
in the treaty itself. If the treaty be of sucha character that its
provisions are closely interrelated and it is indispensable that, in
order to operate effectively,di of its provisions must be obligatory
upon al1 parties thereto, without reservations by any of them,
then it may be wise to make that clear in the specific terms of the
treaty, and in a given case it would be up to the parties and to the WRITTEX STATEMEST OF THE U.S.A. 39
appropriate international organs to see that the basic purpose of
thetreaty was not frustrated.

(c) Theoretical Extremes

Overemphasis on the role of consent, and overzealousness to
safeguard the possible treaty, the effectiveness of which depends
on its acceptance in toto and without variation, have sometimes
pushed legal theory to an extreme comhination of an "unanimity
rule" with a so-called "signatory rule". Similarly, overemphasis
on the desirability of wide adherence and on the sovereign right of
a State to stipulate any condition it sees fias reservations to its
acceptance has tended to produce a so-called "sovereign power
rule':.
.4lthough the "signatory rule" is susceptible of elaborate formula-
tion and wide vanety in the details of its application, its basic idea
is simpleenough. The idea is that a signatory, who may be presumed
to have bargained in a spirit of compromise in the negotiation of

a treaty, and whose owu ratification may be delayed by the neces-
sity, for example, of completing time-consuming constitutional
processes, should not in the meantime be confronted with a fait
acconzpliby which the character of the treaty has been so altered
as to deprive it for such signatory of its hoped-for value. The fact
of the matter is that this danger is wholly irrelcvant tothe Genocide
Convention and even in other types of treaties seems so highly
theoretical as to deserve treatment as de7ttiniriris.
In the case of a treaty as to which, in contrast with the Genocide
Convention, the unanimity rule might be appropriate, it is truc
that the two first parties, let us Say, might accept the reservations
of the third Statc to ratify. Under the unanimity rule, it might
appear to follow as a logical consequence that the treaty must then
be adhered to by al1other signatories as?nodifieribythe third party's

reservations or not at all. Since such a rcsult would seem theoreti-
cally unfair to a possibly objecting majority of signatories, those
who conceivc that the unanimity rule has some superiority have
tried to rescue it from criticism on this score by adding a safeguard
in the interests of signatones. The safeguard is to permit a signatory
to object to a reservation before the signatory has itself become a
party, with the result, of course, under the unanimity rule, that
so long as the objection and reservation are maintained, the reserv-
ing State cannot become a.party. This refinement, however, is a
highly objectionable one, since it must be obvious that such an
extension of thc unanimity rule, if applied strictly, might well
preclude astate ratifying with reservations from becoming a party
to a treaty solely hecaiise the reservations are not consented to,
or let us Say are expressly objected to, by a signatory State which

does not thereafter become a party and which may, at the time of
objecting to the reservations, have had no genuine expectation of
becoming a party.40 WRITTEN STATEIIENT OF THE U.S.A.
It is thc view of the Govemment of the United States that in
fact, as to most treaties of such a character as to make the unani-

mity rule an appropriate procedure (organizational treaties, for
instance), the situation wiü be taken care of by requiring a
sufficientlylarge number of States ta ratify beforethe treaty becomes
effective, thereby ensuring an adequate measure of control over
reservations, to bc exercised, as appropriate, by the parties directly
or through the appropnate organs of the organization created by
the treaty. While in the case of the Genocide Convention, the Court
is surely not called upon ta prejudge the minutie of other cases
which must be regarded as unusual and which should be examined
on their own merits, it is perhaps worth while to point out, before
leaving this subject, that one should start from thegeneralprinciple
that it is only the parties to a treaty which acquire rights under it,

and that a signatory has, of course, no power or privilege ta prevent
the parties from varying the terms of the treaty inter se.It is,
however, conceivable that an implied term of a treaty, of the very
unusual character imagined, might in some instances befound to be
tbat the period during which reservations should be held open ta
objection should be sufficiently long ta permita reasonable time for
completion of the processes of ratification by a prospective party to
the treaty. In no case should the conclusion be reached, in the
absence of express provision to the contrary in the treaty itself, that
a signatory has the power to abject ta a reservation or to prevent
acceptance by the parties of the ratification of another State which
has been made subject to a reservation.

As has been indicated, the signatorytheory iswhoUyobjectionable
with relation to the Genocide Convention. Even if the unanimity
rule, contrary to the conclusions to which the Government of the
United Statcs believes the facts and the principles of intemational
law must lead in this case, were to be deemed relevant to the
Genocide Convention, it is obvious that the Convention itself guards
against the sort of three-party revision feared by requiring twenty
ratifications before it enters into force. It is a factalso that the
Convention has been open for ratification for over two years, which
would not scem an unreasonable period for the completion of the
average intemal processes involved.
Turning, then, to the relevance of the signatory theory to the

conclusions which are, it is submitted, the correct ones in the case
of the Genocide Convention, it wiil he obvious that the legitimate
interest of a late-ratifying party is adequately safeguarded since the
Convention will not have been amended vis-&vis al1parties by the
acceptance by some of the reservations made by one party. On the
contrary, the normal situation would be that the Convention will
be in force under its original terms among the great majority. The
reasonable application of general principles of law to the facts of
the Genocide Convention removes the very problem for which the
"signarory rule" has mistakenly been proffered as an answer. What WRITTE'I STATEMENT OF THE U.S.A. 4I

has been said regarding the "signatory rule" applies with equal or
greater force to its extension to other States "entitled to sign or
accede".
At the other extreme is the "sovereign power rulc". According to
this "rule", as sometimes expressed, it is for each sovereign State
to decide what provisions of a treaty it can accept and impose upon
itself, and any rule to the contrary would be an interference in the

domestic jurisdiction of that State. In other words, according to
this contention, any St;rte has a basic nght to make any reservation
it sees fit, irrespective of the views of other States, and the deposi-
tary (whether a government or an international body) has no
authority to refuse to deposit the instrument of ratification or
accession formally and definitively pending receipt from other
States of consent to the reservation.
There is no basis in normal international relations for any snch
practice. First and foremost, it fails to reflect consideration of the
couiitcrvailing and equal right of al1 States concerned to have a
voice in the contractual commitments which are to be binding upon
them. When a considerable number of States, through their repre-
sentatives at a conference, have formulated a treaty which sets

forth the points of agreement (compromises, perhaps, agreed upon
with some difficulty), it hardly seems reasonable to Saythat each of
those States has a basic sovereign right to make such modifications
or amendments in the treaty as it desires, in the form ofreservations,
without regard to the right of the other States conccrned to deter-
mine whether the treaty, so modified or amended, would be
acceptable.
True it is that every State has the right, so far as its national
action is concerned, to make such reservations as it believes neces
sary in order thatit may become a partytothe treaty. It must then,
so far as international action is conccrned, including the deposit of
the instrument of ratification or accession with the depositary
authority, be ready to take the risk of having its reservations
rejected by some or al1of the other States concerned. If al1 of the
other States reject the reservations, it is impossible to perccive how,

under any known international law, the State making the reserva-
tions could consider itself or be considered a party to the treaty.
Obviously, if no other State consented to the reservations, it would
be anomalous to suggest that the reserving State.could nevertheless
be regarded as a party to the treaty-in its relations with itself.If,
however, the reservations are rejected by some and not by others,
the question then arises as to the estent to which, with due regard
to the character of the treaty and the circumstances, the State
making the reservations can and should be considered a party t'o
the treaty. The primary importance of this aspect of the question
has been authoritatively pointed out :

"Whether a multilateral treaty may be regarded as in force as
between a country making a reservation and countnes accepting42 WRITTEX STATEMEKT OF THE 'U.S.A.
such reservation, but not in force as regards countries not accepting
the reservation, depends upon whether the treaty as signed is
susceptible of application to thesmaller group of signatories. Some
treaties are susceptible ofuch application while others are not ...."
(Hackworth, Digest of InternatirnialLaw (1943), 130.)

and :
"There is good reason to thiuk that in the near future many
more disputes arising upon treaties will be referred to the decision
of international tribunals than has been the case in the past. My
submission is that the task of deciding these disputes will he made
easier if we free ourselves from the traditional notion that the
instrument known as the treaty is governed by a single set of
les, however inadequate, and set ourselves to study the greatly
differing legal character of the several kinds of treaties and to
frame rules appropriate to the character of each kind. The few
pieces of evidence which 1 have brought together seem to me to
justify this suhmission." (Arnold D. McNair, "The Functions and
Differing Legal Character of Treaties", II British Year Book oi
international Law (1930)~ 100, 118.)

IV. Conclusions
\Vith specific reference to the questions presented to the Inter-
national Court of Justice, the conclusions of the Government of the
United States are as follows :

1. Canthe reservingStnte beregardedas beingn party tothe Conven-
tion while still nzaintaining its reservation if the reservationis
objected to by one or more of the parties to the Convention bzrt
not by others ?

Yes. Applying the principles developed ahove, it is to be noted,
first, that the Genocide Convention is not an organizational treaty.
The Genocide Convention is not a complex multipartite agglomer-
ation of economic concessions and guarantees closely bargained
and precariously achieved. It is not a nicely balanced resolution of
divergent and conflicting political and territorial aspirations and
claims. It is a short and relatively simple instrument embodying,
it is true, some important compromises, but consisting essentially

of a definition of an international crime, genocide, of undertakings
with respect to trial and punishment of offenders, of provisions for
the settlement of differences and of the usual forma1 treaty provi-
sions. Unanimously approved by the General Assembly, opened
for accession by al1 Members of the United Nations and by non-
niember States active Members of Specialized Agcncies or parties
to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the Convention
is a'very clear expression of the will of the United Nations that
every responsible State give its undertaking to prevent the recur-
rence of those heinous offenses against mankind that condemned
whole groups, in the twentieth century, to mass destruction. Its
basic purpose and major commitment is to put an end to genocide. WRITTE'I STATEXENT OF THE U.S.A. 43

General acceptance of the Convention and its firm establishment
as a universal rule of law is an objective outweighing by farany nice
considerationsregarding the desirable discouragement ofundesirable,
but nevertheless not fatal, reservations. Here, indeed, is a Conven-
tion in nature and purpose designed to be above the power

of individual States to exclude the participation of others, even
though that participationmay to someseem mistakenly conditioned.
It should be noted, of course, that in the absence of the unanimity
rule, there are still adequate safeguards against reservations so
unreasonable as to make a mockery of ratification. The first is world
public opinion which can and will take note of objections to such

reservations and of their nature. A second is the probability that
no party will accept a ratification subject to a completely fraudulent
reservation. A third is the-ample accumulation of legal precedent
distinguishing true reservations from conditions formally stated as
reservations, but in fact not reservations at all. It would not be
beyond the province of a court to find that a seeming ratification
together with its seeming accompanying reservation were futileand
fraudulent devices, and without legal effect. There is no greater
intrinsic difficulty in distinguishing such a fraudulent reservation
than iii distinguishing reasonable declarations of understanding
from the category of true reservations.

It is with these factors in mind that it is considered that a State
should be pcrmitted to become a party to the Genocide Convention
even though, for constitutional or other reasons, it finds it necessary
to ratify or accede subject to certain reservations, and even though
such reservations, while accepted by some, are objected to by other
States. In that event, of course, there would be some delay in the
actual or definitive deposit of the instrument containing the reserv-
ations, until the Secretary-General had been able to communicate
the reservations to al1other States concerned,including signatories,
giving tbem an opportunity to consent or object to the reservations
or to remain silent with respect to them'. Such a practice would
leave the legal effect of the reservations to be determined as between

the reserving State and each'of the other States,and would free the
Secretary-General of any function except the simple depositary
function. Thus this practice would have the merit of relieving the
Secretary-General of deciding such potentially trouhlesome ques-
tions as these : (1)Before the treaty enters into force, must a11
signatory and acceding States consent to the reservations, or is it
necessary only that-al1 States ratifying or acceding on or before the
date of entry into force consent to the reservations ? (2)After the
treaty enters into force, is it necessary that al1 signatories and
parties consent to the reservations or only that al1parties (that is,
States which have become parties by ratification or accession prior
to the submission for deposit of the instrument containing reserv-

ations) consent to the reservations ?
444 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.S.A.
In fact, the practice advocated would simplify and clarify the
situation to an extraordinary degree, and would operate to the
advantage of al1 concerned. The Secretary-General would receive
the instrument containing reservations. He would communicate the
r'eservations to al1 States concerned, including al1 signatories

(concerned by reason of their participation in the drafting of the
treaty) and al1 States, if any, which had ratified or acceded. An
objection to the reservations by any of the States to which they
were communicated could have an effect on the application of the
treaty only in the event that the objecting State thereafter became
a party, and then wonld have the effect, depending on the nature
of the objection, either of preventing the treaty from being in force
between the reserving State and the objecting State or of preventing
that part of the treaty to which the reservations relate from being
in force between the reserving State and the objecting State.
A State which finds it necessary to ratify or accede subject to
reservations would have an assurance that, unless al1:the States
parties ta the treaty object to the reservation, it has a reasonable

opportunity to become a party. Every State would have an assur-
ance that it need not consider the treaty in force as between it
and the State making the reservations if the reservations are found
by it to be unacceptable. The Secretary-General would follow a
practice which would not be concerned with the question whether
the reserving State can become a party if any other State objects
to the reservations, but would be concerned only with the question
as to when, if any State consented to the reservations, the instru-
ment containing the reseryations could be deemed to have been
deposited. Above all, application of the procedure contemplated
would permit the maximum uumber of States to participate in the
Genocide Convention and would facilitate the broadest possible
application of the greater part of the Convention. It would not be
within the power of any State,by objecting to reservations made by

another State, to prevent the reserving State from becoming a
party to the Geuocide Convention if the reservations are accepted
by one or more other States. The most conclusive effect that any
such objection would have would be'to prevent the Convention
from being effective as hetween the reserving State and the objecting
State.

11. If the answer to question I is in the afir+native,what is the
efect of the reservationas betweelzthe reservingState an:

(a) The fiarties which object to the reservation?
(b) Those which accefit it?
With reference to (a), and for the reasons hereiubefore stated, it
is the opinion of the Government of the United States that the

character and purposes of the Genocide Convention are snch that
States should be encouraged sofar as possible to lend their support WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.S.A. 45
to its effectiveness as a universal condemnation by peoples every-
where of the acts comprehended within the meaning of the term
"genocide". To that end, it is desirable that in the case of any State

which, for reasons which it deems to he necessary and valid, makes
reservations, that State should be allowed to become a party to the
Convention, while maintaining for every other State the right to
object to the reservations and to make known that it considers
either (1)that, because of such reservations, the Convention shall
not be deemed to be in effect in the relations of the objecting State
with the reserving State, or (2)that so much of the Convention as is
affected by the reservations shall not be deemed to be in effect in
the relations of the objecting State with the reserving State. It
would also bein the power of the objecting State to conditionaccept-
ance of relations vis-à-vis the reserving State upon acceptance by
the latter of counter-reservations of the former.
Some reservations may well be of a nature sa slight, in relation
to the entirety of the Convention, that the major portion of the

Convention can be effective between the reserving State and States
objecting to the reservations. On the other hand, some reservations
may be of such a nature as to make the Convention meaningless and
a mere sham. In any event, while recognizing the right of a State
to make reservations, fiill recognition would be accorded also tothe
nght of any other State to object ta such reservations and thereby
not to be bound by them, with the result that the Convention may
not be in force between the reserving State and the objecting State.
This right of objection would extend not only to al1 States which
had become parties prior to the deposit of an instrument containing
reservations but also to al1 States thereafter becoming parties.
With reference to (b) of question II, and for the reasons herein-
before stated, it is the opinion of the Govemment of the United
States that in the case of reservations by any State which deposits
an instrument of ratification or accession with respect to the

Genocide Convention, the Convention as qualified or modified by
those reservations should be deemed to be effective as between the
reserving State and any other State which accepts or consents to
the reservations. So far as concemsanother State which has become
a party to the Convention pnor to the deposit of the instrument
containing the reservations, that other State should have a reason-
able period oftime, after notification of the reservations, to consent
or object thereto. So far as concerns another State which has not
itself become a party to the Convention prior to the deposit of the
instrument containing the reservations, that other State, having
received appropriate notice of the reservations, shonld be expected
to object to the reservations, if it desires to object. not later than
the date on which it deposits its own instrument of ratification or
accession. In almost aii cases, consent should reasonably be implied
from a failure to object, within a reasonable period of time, due

regard being had for the sometimes lengthy periods required where46 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.S.A.
the consent of the legislative branch must be sought and may, of
course, be denied. Any other formula would make it extremely

difficult, if notmpossible, for the depositary to maintain accurate
records showing who are parties to the Convention and the extent
to which the Convention is in effect as between any two parties.

III. What would bethelegalefect as regards the answer toquestion I
if an objectionto a reservation is made:
(a) By a signatory which has not yet ratified?
(b) By a State entitled to sign or accede butwhich has not

yet done so ?
Since the answer to question 1 should he "yes", it follows that an
objection to a reservation, whether by a signatory or by a party,
cannot prevent a State from ratifying the Genocide Convention
subject to reservation. Only the refusal of al1fiarties to the Conven-

tion to assent to a ratification subject to reservation could have this
result. For the purposes of the Genocide Convention, signatories
cannot be entitled to object to a reservation until, at the earliest,
they themselves become parties, and the same would hold tme, a
fortiori, to non-signatories who may be entitled to sign or accede.
Consistently with this position, moreover, it is the position of the
Government of the United States that the signatory at the time it
becomes a party to the Convention must, nevertheless, by its
silence or by some express notification to the Secretary-General.
have indicated whether or not it will accept the obligation of the
Conventionuis-à-vis a reserving State. As a party to the Convention,
but not as a signatory, its attitude, whether an objecting or an
assenting one, becomes of legal significance.

These conclusions,which are called for by the reasonable applica-
tion of general legal principles to the Genocide Convention in the
light of its history, nature and purpose, would be most susceptible
of orderly procedural application by the Secretary-Çeneral as
depositary. Thus, in the case of a convention which has not yet
entered into force, where any State has submitted an instrument
containingreservations, the expressacceptance of those reservations
by any other State which has deposited an unqualified instrument
of ratification or accession on or before the date of the entry into
force of the convention will suffice to consider the instrument with
reservations as having been deposited and forthe purpose of having
that instrument counted among the number of instruments neces-
sary in order to bring the convention into force. At the same time,
it would be recognized that the convention (with reservations)

would be effectiveonly as between the reserving State and the State
or States accepting the reservations, all other States having a
reaspnable opportunity to accept or reject them. The convention
would, of course, also be in force without reservations as among
States ratifying or acceding without reservations, irrespective of WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.S..4. 47

their action vis-à-v tis reservations of others. The rule could be
applied whether the requisite number to bnng the convention into
force was two, ten, twenty, or some other number.
Again, in the case of a convention which has entered into force,
where any State thereafter submits an instrument containing
reservations, that instrument may be considered as having been
deposited on the date the Secretary-General shall have satisfied
himself that at least one other State, which had become or which
becomes a party, had consented thereto, it being regarded that the
convention, as qualified ormodified by the reservations, is effective

between the reserving State and the consenting State. AH other
States which had become parties would have a reasonable oppor-
tunity to accept or reject the reservations ; and ail other States
which thereafter deposited instruments of ratification or accession,
having been appropriately noti6ed of the reservations, would be
expected, not later than the deposit of their respective instruments,
to express their consent or objection to the reservations, or, by
failing to object, leave it to be implied that they consent. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOhI 49

may attempt to make to it, whether on signature, ratification'or
accession.

NATURE OF QUlJSTIONS ADDRESSED TO THE COURT

3. The questions addreSsed to the Court postulate, in relation to
the Genocide Convention, the case of a State which purports to
become a party to the Convention subject to a reservation which it
appends to its ratification or accession or which, in the case of rati-

fication, it has already appended toits signature and which it main-
tains or does not cancel on ratifying this signature. On this basis,
three questions are put to the Court.

(1) The first question is whether the reserving State can be
regarded as being a party to the Convention while still maintaining
its reservation, if the reservation is objected to by one or more of
the parties to the Convention. This question the United Kingdom
Government considers should, in the light of the existing principles
of international law, be answered in the negative. It is important to
note that the question is fundamentally concerned not so much

with the validity and ieffect of the reservation itself, as with the
validity and effect of the actof ratification or accession(accompanied
by the reservation) accordingto which the reservingState fiurfiorts to
become a fiarty to theConvention subject to this reservation. What is
here directly in issue, is the right to become a party while reserving
in the face of objection made by other States.

(2) The second question, which relates to the effect of the reserv-
ation as between the reserving State and (a) those who ohject to
it, (b) those who accept it, can only arise if the answer to the first

question is in the affirmative, since the question of the effect of the
reservation vis-à-vis the other parties to the Convention can only
be innti.ri;tl if rtii. rcii,r\,iiig 5it,t:li> IIIl)trcg;ir<l<~:is:i part).,
iiot\vttI~s~ai~ ~ ~tlie nbiectiùiis oftered to itireservatioiis. %CL.the
United ~in~dok consiciers that a negative answer should be given
to the first question, it follows that, in its opinion, the second ques-

tion does not cal1for any answer ;nevertheless certain comments on
this second question wiii be offered in due course, because it is partly
hy considering the consequences of the possible answers to the
second question, in relation to such a convention as the Genocide
Convention, that a correct answer to the first question can be
arrived at. It should he noticed, moreover, that it is principally in
relation to this second question, both in itself and as regards its

bearing on the first question, or perhaps, more accurately, in
relation to both questions combined, that it becomes material what
type of convention is involved ;whether, for instance, a convention
of a technical or commercial character, or what might be called a
system- or régime-creating convention, or a convention of the
social or law-making type such as the Genocide Convention.5O WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UXITED KINGDOM

(3) The third and final question in effect repeats the first question
but with reference to the case of objections to a proposed reserv-
ationoffered not hy anactualparty to the Convention but by a State
which is merely potentially a party, i.e. which has signed but not
ratified, or which has not signed but is still entitled to become a
party by accession. As to this, it will suffice for the moment to Say
that in the opinion of the United Kingdom Government,there is no
legal difference, or difference of principle, between the cases respec-
tively envisaged by the first and third questions, though there may
be certain differences of emphasis and degree-that is to Say the

United Kingdom Government considers that potential parties have
a sufficient legai interest in the matter to entitle them to make vaiid
and effective opposition to any attempt by another country to
become a party to the Convention subject to a reservation to which
they object. In brief, assuming that the right to offer effective objec-
tion to an attempted reservation should be limited to the category
of what may be termed "interested countries", or countries having
a legitimate interest in the matter, the United Kingdom Govem-

ment would, generally speaking,includein that category not merely
actual parties to the Convention concerued, but also countries
entitled to become parties, and entitled therefore to object to reserv-
ations which, in their opinion, would have the effect of altenng the
balance of the Convention, thus prejudicing the right of these States
to become parties to it in its original form,.e. impairing that right
as it originaily existed and substituting forit a different right, to
become parties to what might really be a different convention.
Such is the broad principle which the United Kingdom Government
considers applicable, though certain qualifications to it may be
admitted and will be noticed in due course.

NATURE AND MEANING OF THE TERM "RESERVATION"

4. Before developing its reasons for the above-suggested answers
to the questions addressed to the Court, the United Kingdom
Government desires to make certain preliminary observations on
the general nature and character of what is to be regarded as consti-
tuting a reservation for the purpose of these questions. Although
the questions themselves do not ask the Court to pronounce upon

any particular reservations made to the Genocide Convention, the
Court will be aware that the whole of this matter has arisen ont of
a number of specific reservations or purported reservations to that
Convention already made hy certain States, which have been
objected to by other States, actual or potential parties to the
Convention, the United Kingdom Government amongst them.
Whiie it is not the intention of the United Kingdom Government to
comment specificaiiy on these reservations, since the questions put
to the Court do not raise the issue of the character or validity of
any individual reservation as such, it does seem necessary to stress WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED KIXGDOM j1

the fact that these questions are, and must be, based on certain
pre-suppositions as to the general nature of a reservation, and that
they necessarily relate and can only relate (a) to reservationswhich
are truly in the nature of "reservations" in the proper sense of the

term, and (b) to reservations which are made, or purport to bemade,
unilateraily and without the consent, express or implied, of the
other interested States having previously been obtained.

5. As regards point (b), it is obvious that no questions of the
character envisaged in those addressed to the Court can arise if
general consent to the reservation concerned has already been
obtained, or can be presumed from silence. Ex hypothesi, these
questions presuppose the case where previous general consent has

not been ohtained and cannot be presumed, and the reservation is
therefore attempted to be made unilaterally-that is, in effect, to
be snbsequently imposed on the other interested States1 at the
instance, and purely as the act of the reserving State, and not as
part of the common process of drafting and drawing up the Conven-
tion. Obvious though it may be, however, that the questions addres-

sed to the Court relate, and can only relate, to unilateral (and so to
speak arbitrary) reservations of this character, it is important to
notice the point in view of the many reservations to mnltilaterd
conventions which undouhtedly exist and have been admitted in the
past ;for this situation must not be aliowed to obscure the broad
fact that, even ailowing for irregularities and exceptions, most of

these cases would, on examination, usually prove to be cases in
which specific consent to the reservations concerned was obtained,
or could be presumed from the fact that no active objection was
made ; or where, as often occurs, the makiig of reservations is
specifically permitted by or provided for in the convention itself
The present questions relate to an entirely different situation and

contemplate reservations of quite a different kind. As has already
been observed, the real issue is not the right of countries to seek or
to attempt to make reservations-but their right to become padies
to the Convention while at the same time maintaining reservations
to which objection has been offered by other interested States.

6. As regards point (a) mentioned at the end of paragraph 4
above, namely what constitutes a reservation in the proper sense of
the term, the United Kingdom Govemment wishes to observe that
a reservation consists and must consist of an attempt (a) to restrict

' The te- "interested State(or countries)" iused herï and elsewhere as a
convenient piece of description,withoprejudice (for the time being) to ques-
tion of what States or countries shoulbe regarded as "interrsted,i.e. whether
parties only,or potential parties as well.
2 For this reason,the existencof numerous conventions to which reçervations
have been made or admitted in the past, is not in itselfact which constitutes
an argument in support of the propasitian that States have an inherent right to
make reservations unilaterally and jrrepectivof the views and wishes of other
interestcd States.52 WRITTES STATEMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

(not enlarge) the scope of the Convention, and (b) todo soinrelation
to the obligations of thereserving Stateitseli (notother States).This
may seem obvious ; nevertheless certain of the so-called reserva-
tions to the Genocide Convention do not conform to this definition
and are not, in the opinion of the United Kingdom Government,

reservations at alll. It is therefore necessary to elucidate the point.
It is self evident that a reservation can, in its nature, seek only to
restrict not enlarge the scope of the Convention. If an enlargement
were involved, then it must either operate as regards the position
of the reserving State itself,or it must purport to affect and enlarge

the obligations of other States which are, or may become, parties
tothe Convention. If the former were the case, however, no reserva-
tion would be needed or appropnate, for the case would simply be
one of the voluntary assumption by the State concerned of addi-

tional obligations, over and above those contained in the Conven-
tion. Such a voluntary assumption of additional obligations is, of
course, inherently within the right of al1States to undertake, and
no question of consent or objection by other States (such as the

questions put to the Court envisage) would normally arise. If, on
the other hand, the intention were to enlarge the scope or field of
the Convention in its application to other States or theirterritory,
this would plainly be something that no State could have the power
to do by its own unilateral act. It wonld amount to imposing on the

other States concerned, without their consent. additional obliga-
tions not provided for in the Convention, or even, it may be,
actually excluded or negatived by it %. It follows that a reservation
properly so called can only be restnctiye in character, directed to
limiting the scope of the Convention. Such limitation must equally

be with respect to the position and obligations of the reserving
State not of other States, for clearly no State can release other
States from their obligations under a multilateral convention,
though it may express willingness (so far as it itself is concerned) to

accept from these States less than the performance of their strict
obligations 3.
7. For these reasons, if the Court had been asked in the present

case to pronounce on the nature and propriety of the individual

'i.e. thosc relating to Article SI1 of the Convention, the rfofcivhich-wçre
they valid-would bç to extend the field of the territorapplicationof the Con-
vention in a manner expressly negativrd by the provisions of this articlc.
Thus Article XII of the Genocide Convention, which is hrre in question, makes
it quite clear that the Convention only applies to overçeas territoaseand when
extended ta them by the metropolitan government concerned. Xo so-called
reservation can cause the Convention to apply to an overseas territoryotheiwise
than a?provided bv this article, and any such. .rportcdreservationmr'st, juridi-
cally, be ipso factoa nullity.
Even thiç may br doubtful. The convention might be ofsuch a nature that it
was material to the other parties that its provisions should be carried out with
respect to al1the partieseven if one of themwas willing to release another from54 WRITTES STATEMEXT OF THE UNITED XIKGDOM

already considered above-paragraph 5 ) ; (2) that each State
alone could judge, and therefore must be the sole judge, of how
far and to what extent it could participate in a given convention-
a point to.which the simplest answer is that no State is ever bound
to become a party to an international convention at all, but if it
does, it cannot do so on the basis of selecting those parts of the

convention that suit it and excluding those that do not-a con-
vention is a balanced integrated whole :it must be accepted as a
whole or not at al1 ; and (3) that since most modern conventions
are drawn up by the employment of a process of majority voting,
and the resnlt broadly represents the views of the majority, a
system which does not permit of the States of the minority making
reservations at will would result in preventing these from becoming

parties to the convention, or force them to become parties only
on the majority's terms, which would be to impose the will of the
majority on the minonty-to which the answer is broadly the
same as for the previous argument, with the additional comment
that to permit the so-called minonty, by a process of unilateral
reservations made at will, to become parties to the convention on
a basis different from (and it may be even contrary to) that pro-

vided by the text itself, and differeut from that on which the other
States become parties, wonld be to do something far more extra-
ordinary, namely to impose the will of the minonty on the major-
ity !-and in the process to alter the balance and effect of the
application of the convention.

IO. In a very able exposition of these and similar views, the
distinguished delegate of Poland, Dr. Manfred Lachs, sought to
establish a distinction between the methods of negotiation employed
in former times, and particularly during much of the nineteenth
century, and those which had come to be employed more recently.
He observed, not without some justice, that the usual rule had
formerly been unanimity or quasi-nnanimity. Most conventions

were negotiated between relatively small groups of States. Clauses
were only inclnded in them if al1 or nearly al1 concerned in their
drafting agreed, or were prepared eventnally to agree to them.
Thus no great necessity for making reservations existed and the
matter did not normally arise 2. Now, however, that conventions
were negotiated on a world-wide basis, between countries very
differently circnmstanced one from another, the practice of elabo-

rating the texts by a majonty process had grown up. This meant
' The point(evçrnecessary to he inçion)isnot the making of the reservations,
but the failure to adopt the proper methodç and procedures for doing sthet
fact that reservvtions olaremade and adrnitted, but whether this can be done
when they areobjected to-orrather, whether despite such objection, the reçerving
State can becornea party to the convention while rnaintaining the reservation.
MostA number ofcthenexamples quoted by Dr. Lachs himseli, howrver, in support
of his argument that the makiof unilateral reservations is a consecrated practice
show that real unanimity was not much more frequently achieved thrn than now. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITEII KINGDOM 55

that, unless a faculty to make reservations were admitted, many
countnes would be excluded from participation in multilateral
conventions.
II. Dr. Lachs was here in effect contending that there had been
such a change in the circumstances surrounding the drawing up
of multilateral conventions as to cal1 for a change in the law, or
at any rate for a new view as to the legal pnnciples applicable.
In this contention there would be some force if it were put fonvard

as an argument for expressly fiermilling certain classes of reserv-
ations to be made, and even for making provision to that end in
the convention itself ;or if it were put fonvard as a plea for the
exercise of reasonableness and understanding on the part of States
in giving consent (or at any rate not objecting) to reservations
that other States wished to make. But it is not and cannot be a
valid argument, jundically, for the proposition that States have
an absolute legal nght as an act of sovereignty (a) to attach what
reservations they please to their signature, ratification or accession
to a convention ;(b) to be regarded as parties to the convention
subject to such reservations ; and (c) do al1 this in spite of actual
objection offered by other legitimately interested States, with the
result that those States will be bound to respect and give effect
to the reservations in their relations with the reserving State

despite their objection. Yet that is what the view now under
discussion involves, and that is also what would result from an
affirmative answer to the first of the questions put to the Court,
subject to certain considerations arising out of the second question
which will be dealt with later. While, therefore, it may weli be,
as Dr. Lacbs snggested, tbat a certain change in conditions has
occurred, the remedy he advocated in order to meet it is not the
right one, and would create greater difficulties than it would solve,
for reasons which wiil be indicated directly.

The Orthodox View

12. Opposed to the views so ably expounded by Dr. Lachs were
a number of countriesamongst them the United Kingdom-
which took the oehodox view that a contract or convention, once
drawn up and adopted as a tezt, cannot be aitered, nor can the
effect and baiance of the obligations it provides for be changed,
except by the consent of al1 concerned-what the Secretary-
General's Report (Document A/1372) calls the principle of una-

nirnity. Those taking this view, while recognizingthat inmany cases
it was desirable togive consent to certain proposed reservations, or
to ailow of a faculty to make them, provided this was done by a
regular and agreed procedure, considered that there could be no
inherent or unilateral righlto make reservations to a convention
the text of which had aiready been discussed and drawn up-still
less any nght to become a party to the convention subject to a WRITTEN STATEMEXT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
56
reservationto which objection had been offered by other interested

States. Any country could seek or ;bro;bosa e reservation in order to
meet its snecial difficulties. constitutional or other. and other
countries cduld, and in al1 proper cases doubtless woild, consent,
or at any rate refrain from making objection to reservations which
were harmless. In the last resort, it was not making (in this sense

of proposing) a reservation, that mattered. What mattered was the
assertion of a right to make it, and to maintain it despite objection,
and to become a party to the convention in such circumstances.
There were only two correct courses to be followed hy a country
which, desiring to make a reservation after thetext of a convention
had been finally elaborated,found that this reservation was objected

by other interested States. It must either abandon the reservation
or give up becoming a party to that particular convention.

13.Those holding this view considered that, regrettable though
it might be that States should on occasion be ùnable to participate
in a convention1, this was a lesser evil than a position according to
which there could never be any finality about the text of any
convention, even when the process of its negotiation and drafting

was supposed to be completed. States attending an international
conference to draw up a convention came with varions ideas, and
began by putting forward different and divergent views. Eventually,
after discussion, something was decided on which met with more or
less general agreement, and on that basis the final text was elab*
rated. If the whole matter could, in effect, be reopened by the

subsequent introduction on a unilateral basis of some new point by
way oi'reservation, or the reintroduction of a point alreadi discui-
sed and disnosed of. or bv the elimination. so far as the.reservine
State was ioncerned, of Sornething expreskly included dnring th:
negotiations" then there could he no finality, there could be no

completed negotiation, there could be no definitive text. States
could not bring a conference to an end thinking they,had finished
the business in hand, for they might find that reservations were
subsequently introduced on important points which had the effect
of reopening some vital aspect of the matter, and which, if main-

This necd not follow. States may well hope to be permitto make a reserv-
ation. yet not be completely unaborunwilling to participatethis is refusad.
It needç to he stressed again (see paragra5 above) that the type resïrv-
to the Court, is a reççrvation on an issue of sub;ebecause where a reservationsed
is purely formal or technical in charactor merely relates to çome unimportant
detail of the constitutioposition of the reserving State. other States do not as
a rule take definite objection to it even if they do not particapprove of it.
Itiç thuç no argument in favour afunilateralright of reservationSay that the
great majority of reservatioare ofa formal, minor of harmless characterEven
if this were true (and actually it probably isnot true), it would not affect the fact
that the difhculty arises precisely over those reservations which. because they relate
ta important issues of substance.nnot be ignored or overlooked by other States
and give rise to objections. \VRIT.TEN STATEMENT OF THE USITED KINGDOM 57

tained, must alter the character and balance of theresult'. This
would be destructive of the whole process of the international

ncgotiation and elahoration of conventions as generally practiced
and understood.

14. It was pointed out by those who held this view that every
international instrument consisted of a syiithesis of different pro-
posais and ideas ; it formed a balanced whole, of which the different
parts.were mutually integratecl and interdependent. A practice

according to which a Statc could, at will, accept certain parts of
such an instrument while making rcservations on others, must
clestroy this balance, and must often cause the whole character of

the obligation to undergo a change. Indeed, in certain circum-
stances, a small group of States acting in concert might be able in
effect to substitute an entirely different instrument for the original
one- (this last possibility is more fully discussed in paragraph 42

below). If a general unilateral right of reservation were admitted,
what limits could be placed on the practice ? In theory, a State
might enter reservations on every article of a convention except the

one or two which it found acceptable. This would be to make
nonsense of the convention and to destroy its whole nature and
purpose. Even if, in practice, matters were not normally carried to
that extreme, the existence of a general unilateral right of reserva-

tion would introduce a serious element of doubt, flux and insccurity
into afield where there ought to he certainty, finality and stahility 2.
It is, in fact, only comparitively seldom that a real difficulty felt hy

a State as to its ability to acccpt a ccrtain obligation genuinely
arises as a mere afterthought. The possibility would normally be

'It is in fact, as juçt stated, only reservatioris of this character or something like
it which are likely to lead to formal objection the part of otherStates,and there-
fore to give rise to the issues involvcd in thc questionom addreçse<l.to the Court.
It is nrcessary to bear this fact çonstuniimincl. bccause itis tempting to concludç
that, as many reservationç are unimportant or harmless, there is no rrason why
States should not br permitted to make them. The answer is that if they really are
unimportant ar harmleçs. the States concernr<l mil1normally be permitted to makc
them :other Statez will not object. It iç precisely thosr which are not unimportant
or hsrmless that other States takr objection to. The correct way to take account of
the fact thatmany reservatiunsare ofa minor orharmless character is to rçlon the
good srnçe of otherStates not to object to them.or clseto make definitc provision
for certaincategories of such rescrvation~ in the text of the convention itsrlf. To
allow a gencral unilateral rigbl of rescrvatiooiithis account, is. however, to open
th: claacto something quitc diflerent and muçh more serious.
The Court cannot of coursc bc, and is not. c~llçd u~on to state what ivould bc
ideally desirahle or what praïticçareor wouldbe objrct~onable. but to drclare what
thç law on the subject in tact is. The forçgoing considerationareadduced in order
to show the practicalreaeons why the law iç what the United Kingdom Government
belicves it to be. ïhe legal consi<lerations involarc ofcourse piainandçoelrmrn-
tary as scarcely to need discussion. They might br summed up in the two following
propoîitians which hardly admit of any dispute, narnely (a) that once acontract
has bec" drawn up it cananly be altered by the common consent of al1 concerncd
and (6)that no party or intending party to a contract can, by his own unilateral
act, impose on the others the acccptaiiçc from him of a lesser obligation. or the
pcrfomunce by them of a greater one.than the contract itself provides for. WRIïTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM 59

impaired the contractual element itself, and replaced it by the
element of the arbitrary. It would thus involve a fundamental legal

contradiction, by which it would necessarily be vitiated and ren-
dered void ab initio.

Pan-American School of Thought

17. The third main current of opinion in the General Assemhly,
represented principally by the States of Latin America, urged the
application to United Nations conventions1 such asthe Genocide
Convention, of the system agreed upon by the States of the Pan-
American Union for use in the case of conventionsnegotiated under
the auspices of the Union. The advocates of this system in the

General Assembly tended to'represent it.as a compromise between
the two schools of thought already noticed, but in the opinion ofthe
Government of the United Kingdom it cannot tmly be regarded in
' that light, on account of its inappropriateness to the United Nations

type of convention and the inconsistencies of a legal character
which would result from its application in that case.
18. Supeficially, however, this system appeared at first to offer

a course midway between the other two. On the one hand, its
advocates fiilly recognized the principle that no State can, by its
omn unilateral act, impose on another State the acceptance of
something less than, or different from, what is provided in a conven-
tion as elaborated and drawn up. Conseqnently they agreed that a
State cannot make a unilateral reservation in such a manner as to

be valid and hinding as between it and States which ohject to the
reservation. On the other hand, they did not consider that, on
account of such an objection, the reserving State should he debarred
altogether from becoming a party to the convention. They consid-
ered that if there were States which were willing to accept the

reservation, there was no reason why the convention should not
enter into force between those States and the reserving State. But
it would not come into force between that Stateand those objecting
to the reservation.

19. A more complete description of this system wiUhe found in
paragraphs 24 and 26 of the report of the Secretary-General
already referred to (Dociiment A/1372), and the details need not be
further Eone into here. It will be seen at once, however, that the

1 This term is a convenientone to describe conventionsdrawn up under the
auspices of the United Nationswhich conçist almoçt entirelof that category
of internationainstrument styled law-making,as creatingrulesof international
luw, or some status, régime or system, or which are oa social characteThe
Genocide Convention is a typical United Nations conventbothas to its content
and the manner of its drawing"p. Other examples are the draft Covenant on
Human Rights, the draft Conventions on Freedom of Information,the Prostitu-
tion Convention. and the Convention on the Privilegesand Immunitirs of the
United Xations.
560 WRlTTEN STATEMENT OF THE UKITED KINGVOi\I

application of this system leads to the result, \vhich is itself legally
an anomaly, that tw countries can both be parties to the same
convention and yet that convention may not be in force between
them. However, the United Kingdom Government does not desire

to discuss the merits or dernerits. legal or other, of the systcm in
itself, because whatevcr these may be, and whatever geueral legal
rules may govern the subject of reservations to multilateral conven-
tions, there is of course nothing to prevent a group of States, by
special agreement inter se, from adopting differeiit rules for applica-

tion in the case of certain coiiventions cntered into within thegroup.
The pertinent question for present purposes is whcther thc applica-
tion of the Pan-American systcm to United Nations conventions,
and in particular ta the Genocide Convention, would be legally
vossihle. havine re~ard tothe character of that Convention and to
- -
ihe absence of any special agreement on the part of %lembersof the
United Nations, such as esists among hfembers of the Pan-American
Union in the case of Pan-American conventions. for the av..ication
of a similar system to United Nations conventions.

zo. But before going on to discuss these legal issues, it is desirable
to notice two main advantages claimed for the Pan-American system

by its supporters. First, it is said to facilitate the general adoption
of international coiivciitions, and the greatest possible dcgrce of
participation in them, by enabling States to become parties to them
even though makiiig important reservations, while at the same tirne
not forcing those reservations on States which object to them. Even

assuming this to be true', it still leaves open the question of the
value of general participation in a convention on a basis which
causes, or may caiise that convention not to be applicd at al1
between certain of the parties, and to be applied in an entirely
different manner betnreen various groups even of those of the

parties hetween whom it is applied. IVhile the utmost dcgree of
participation in international conventions is no doubt to be desired,
it loses ils point unless the convention participated in is fundamen-
tally the sarne for ail. If the effect is merely to set np asystem of
differing cross relationships between various groiips of the parties,

that result could equally well, perhaps preferably, have been
achieved by the negotiatioii of a series of bilateral or tri- or quadri-
lateral agreementsz, and it is in any case arguahle that what the

It is by no means certain that it is true. A statistical investigation might well
reveal that the average number of ratifications or accessions to Pan-American
Union conventions, proportionately to the number of passible participants. is no
grester than,oriseven less thûnin the caseofother conventions ta ivhich the Pan-
American system-is not appliecl.
There isin fact much to be saidforthe view that thePan-American system is
re:.ila.tiiiivenimrtechnical inethicilïr,..xtia r,,r c8fbtri-.quadri- or qc~lnqul-
panai<.rclaiii>iist,ofsa bronillysirnll:ir tli'iii~tidrr.tica1 characicAs siich.
rhcrc i-a lutta th ..it~for~t.but tlle rniili;of rniirar;idifferent rliing Irornn
single multilateral convention in the ordinuy sense of the term. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM 61

system really produces is, in fact, a set of bipartite or tri-orquadri-
partite relationships, rather than the fuily multilateral relation-
ships which should result from, and be the effect of, a multilateral

convention.
21. Secondly, it is claimed for this system that it eliminates al1

uncertainty as to whether a given State is a partyto the convention
concerned or not, and facilitates the task of the headquarters or
depositary government or organization. Every State that ratifies

or accedes to a convention, even though subject to a reservation,
automatically ranks as a party to it. The question of the application
of the convention between the State concerned andthe othcr parties,
according as thcy do or donot accept the reservation, is left overfor

subsequent determination. The attractions of such a position are
evident, but it may be doubted whether in the long riin it has much
advantage over the application of the orthodox rule that ratifica-
tions and accessions made subject to reservations (other than such

as have previously been agreed on, or except in cases where the
convention expressly permits of reservations being made) cannot
take effect until it has been ascertained that there is no objection to
these. The Pan-American system bas, on the other hand. certain

striking theoretical flaws. For instance, its application really
involves a gamble on no really serious reservation of substance
being made, for if such a reservation were made, it might well be
objected to by al1the other States concerned, with the rcsult that

the convention would not come into force between the reserving
State and any of the others. Yet nomioally, the reserving State
would be a party to the convention' although its participation
would be devoid of al1 content. Moreover, the reserving State

would, evcn in siich circumstances, apparently count as a party
for the purpose of bringing the convention basically into force in
those cases wherc that cvent depended on the deposit of a given
number of ratifications or accessions2. This however is hardly an

admissible status for a participation that proves to be merely
nominal and has no actual reality. Even if these possibilities be
ignored as unlikely to occur in practice, it could easily happen that
only a small minority of States was willing to accept the reservation

in question. In that case, the reserving State would be a party to a
convention which was nevertheless not in force between it and the
great majority of the other parties, clearly a most anomaloiis
situation.

Because the whàle point of the system is that each ratifying or acceding State
automatically, and as of right. becomes a party. whatever its reicrvations, and the
effect ofthese is only gonï into aftenuards.
This must be so.because the headquarters or depositary government ororgan-
ization has to accept thc ratification or accession as valid and eiiectiveat themoment
of rccctviiiir Irm,iy nulbr uitiil wel;iftirtliiI.ir\rhr.ii tlnuiitliiiieie,sary
iicin.ifthc otlicr p:~rriIUCfwillinpa1.nctrpt<threrercrvaii<.nçunc<rncd.hincdtliat62 WRITTEK STATEMENT OF THE UNITED KIXGDOM

LEGAL DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS TO THE
APPLICATION OF THE PAN-AMERIC.4N SYSTEM TO
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONS

22. Attention is drawn to the foregoing points, not in order to
criticize the application of the system within the special field of
the conventions of the Pan-Amencan Union, but in order to show
that, doctrinally, it is open to certain senous legal objections-
which exist in themselves and irrespective of the category of
international convention to which the system is being applied.

But in addition, the application of the system to United Nations
conventions would have other and far more serious disadvan-
tages of a legal character, which will be described in a moment.
The existence of these legal objections, it is submitted, makes it
impossible to regard the system as having any force as a funda-
mental rule of international law, i.e. as having any force except
such as may be derived from a special agreement to apply it in

a certain field, such as exists between Members of the Pan-Amencan
Union. The system has, in fact, no warrant under the general rules
of international law, and depends wholly on special agreement.
No such agreement has been entered into between Members of
the United Nations for the application of a similar system to
United Nations conventions, quite apart from the inherent objec-
tions to its application to that type of convention which wili be

noticed directly. On this ground alone therefore, i.e. of the neces-
sity for agreement and of the absence of any such agreement
applicable to or covering the case of the Genocide Convention, it
is respectfuliy submitted that the Court should, on a $riorigrounds,
refuse to give, in connexion with the first question addressed to
it, any affirmative answer based on the hypothesis that the system
of the Pan-American Union is applicable to the case of the

Genocide Convention.
23. If this is correct, it is, stnctly speaking, unnecessary to

discuss the legal difficulties which would arise if an attemwere
made to apply the Pan-American system to United Nations
conventions of the Genocide type. Nevertheless, it seems desirable
to draw attention to some of them. They have been very aptly
described in paragraphs 31-37 of the report of the Secretary-
General (Document A/1372) already referred to, while in the
discussionsin the General Assemblythe United Kingdom representa-

tive further stressed these difficulties and endeavoured to give
some cqncrete examples of what they might lead to. The funda-
mental objection of a legal character to the application of the
Pan-Amencan system to United Nations conventions is that the
latter (as a general rule, and in any case so far as the Genocide
Convention is concerned) differ in kind from the type of con-
vention for which that system was devised. The Pan-Amencan WRITTEN STATE.IIEST OF THE UNITED KISGDOM 63

type is essentiaily contractual, not only in form but in operation.
It consists of a set of mutual rights and obligations operating
reciprocdiy between each State a party to the convention and each
other State a party. As the report of the Secretary-General puts

it, the essential nature of this type of convention is
"to facilitate the csclinnye of merely contr:ictti:il iiiiJertekin#s
uittiin:igroup of Srntcs. Sucli conventions. nltlio~iglitiiultil:iteral
in form,arc, in operarioti.siinpl!:icomples of I>ilater;ilagrccmçnts."

In the case of this type of convention, there is clearly no partic-
ular objection if the States concemed like to apply a system

according to which their reciprocal obligations inter se can be
controlled and varied by a process of making, and accepting or
rejecting, reservations. But it is far different with conventions of
the social, laur-making, or status-, régime-or system-creating type.
Here, as a rule, the essential condition, on the basis of which
each party consents to be bound and to accept the obligations
of the convention, is that ail the other parties shall equally be
bound, and by al1 and by precisely the same obligations. There

is no place for any variation in the application of the convention
as petween particular sets,of parties :indeed it is to a large extent
meaningless to talk of such variation, because the obligations
concerned are for the'most part of such a character, that, if
assumed at ail, tbey necessarily operate at large, and the question
of their being in force between certain countnes but not others
cannot arise'. If, for instance, a country subscribes to a con-

vention forbidding the use of inhuman methods of punishment,
it has a general-and absolute-obligation not to use such methods
at all, and this is not affected by the fact that the convention is
not in force between it and certain countries which have not
ratified or acceded to it, or have done so only subject to reserv-
ations which the first country has not accepted (assuming the
application of the Pan-Amencan system). Quoting again from

the report of the Secretary-General (paragraph 32) :
"To use the esample at hand, it does not seernentirely plausible

to treat a convention for the suppression of the crime of genocide
as a bargain adaptable for entry into force betweenone pair among
the parties thereto but not between another pair. Rather the
Genoùde Convention would seem to represent the true type of
legislative convention having the object of creating rules of law
for identical operation in the different States adopting thern-
establishing, in fact, 'a public law transcending in kind and not
merely in degree ordinary agreements between States'. ' "

'Except perhaps on the quite different question of what countries are entitled
to make a formal cornplainor take other actioin thç evcnt ofa breach of the
obligation:but this does not affect the contcnt of the obligation.
The quotation is from McNair, BritisYhearBook O/ Intevnritional La1930.
p. 113.64 WKITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

The representative of the United Kingdom in the Sixth
Committee of the General Assembly made the same point, if less
felicitously, when he said that the obligations entailed hy such
conventions as the Genocide Conventionwere essentially indivisible,
assumed and owed as a whole, and that it was contrary to good
sense in the case of this type of convention to allow a situation in
which two countries were both parties to the same convention yet
the convention was not in force between them.

24. These considerations lead to the second main legai objection
to the application of the Pan-Amencan system to such conventions
as the Genocide Convention. This is that the sanction, relief or
remedy which that system provides to meet the case where the
reservations made by one State are objected to by another, breaks
down, or has no real field of operation as regards conventions of the
social,law-making, or status-, régime- or system-creating type. This
sanction, relief or remedy is that the convention does not come into
force between the reserving and the objecting State. In the case of
conventions of a commercial, technicai or general type, this is a
realitybecause, as the obligations of the convention are essentially
reciprocal and operate betweenthe parties, i.e. from each one towards
each of the others separately, then, if the convention is not in force
between the reserving State and the objecting State. the latter is

tmly absolved from doing something it would otherwise have
to do, namely carry out the obligations of the convention towards
the rese~ng State. Because these obligations are obligations which
the objecting State would otherwise have to carry out specifically
towards and for the benefit of the reserving State, the fact that the
convention is not in force between them has real significance and
legai effect. But this is not the case where conventions of the United
Nations type are concerned, because the obligations they contain
exist and have to be camed out zcniuersally,once they are assumed.
They do not consist of duties owed specifically to, and to be camed
out towards and for the benefit of, the other parties to the conven-
tion. In brief they are not fundamentally contractual. It is only the
method of their assumption which is contractual. Their 09erationis

not dependent on the existence of a contractualtiewith otherstates.
25. The matter is most easily understood by considering one or
two concrete illustrations.
(1) If a group of States enters into a convention for the mutuai
reduction of tariffs inter se, then, if country A hecomes a party to
the convention, but country B does not, or if country B is a party

but, in the application of the Pan-American system, the convention
is not in force between A and B. because B ratified subject to a
reiervation and A objected, it is manifest that A is under no obliga-
tion to give B the benefit of any tariff reductions. B's goodscan be
charged at a higher rate than those of the other parties. Thus the
relief toA is real. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM 65
(2) In the case of the Genocide Convention on the other hand, the
position is quite different. A country which becomes a party to that

Convention assumes a general obligation to prevent and pnnish aü
acts of genocide ivithin its jurisdiction. The nationaiity of the
victims is immaterial. Such a country could not Say to another :
"Since you are not a party to the Genocide Convention-or since,
though you are a party, the Convention is (in the application of the
Pan-Amencan system) not in force between us, because you made
a reservation to which we objected-therefore we are not obliged to
prevent or punish genocide attempted against yonr nationais. We
are only obliged to protect the nationals of countries between whom
and ourselves the Convention is in force." On the contrary, the
country concemed would have to carry out the provisions of the
Convention absolutely, and irrespective of the position of other

countnes, because the obligations involved are of a general, self-
existent, and non-contractual character, and do not consist of
something that has to be done specifically towards another country.
If assumed at all, they are assumed for al1and towards all, by the
mere act of becoming a party.
(3) In the General Assembly the representative of the United
Kingdom gave as a fiirther illustration the case of the General
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.

He pointed out that this Convention was intended inter alia to
create a status for the United Nations and its officials, and that
there was no reality in speaking of it being in force betweenthe
hlemhers of the United Nations, or between some of them but not
others, becanse the obligations of the Convention did not depend on
that, nor did the status of the oficials concerned depend on it. It
depended on whether the Convention was in force at all-or not in
force ;and for each Meinber of the United Nations its obligation to
give effect to that status, depended iiot on whether it was bound by
the Convention to other Members, but on whether it was bound by
the Convention at all-in fact. simply on whether it was or was not
a party to the Convention, irrespective of what any other country

did. If it rvasa party t« the Convention it was obliged, irrespective
of whether the same obligation had been assumed by other countries,
to grant certain privileges and immunities in its territory to officials
of the United Nations. It could not, for instance, Say toX.anofficia1
of the United Nations :"Because you are a national of country Y,
and country Y has not ratified the Convention, we are not bound to
grant you these privileges and immunities." It could not Say this,
because the obligation does not operate in that way. It is not in the
nature of aduty owed directly to country Y and therefore dependent
for its existence on country Y being a party to the Convention.

26. These examples make it clear that one of the chief claims
made for the Pan-American system. namely that it permits countries
to participate in conventions subject to reservations while safe- 66 WRI~EN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

guarding the position of countries which object to the reservations

concerned, is only of limited truth. It is in fact true only of the type
of convention to which the Pan-Amencan system is normally applied,
and is illusory as regards the type of convention to which the
Genocide Convention belongs. The Pan-American system not only
- consists of, but essentially defiends on, a balance between, on the

one hand, the right, or rather the claim of the reserving State to be
allowed to become a party to the convention subject to the reserv-
ations it desires to make, and, on the other hand, the right of States
objecting to these reservations to treat the convention as not being
in force between them and the reserving State, and, pro tanto, not

ta have to carry ont the obligationsof the convention.If, however, the
objecting State, despite its objections, nevertheless has still to carry
out the obligationsof the convention and to carry them out in fzcll,
while the reserving State can maintuin its reservations, then clearly
this balance breaks dowii completely. This in fact is precisely what

must occur with conventions of the Genocide type if the Pan-
American system is applied to them. Al1 the advantages would
accrue to the reserving State, and al1the prejudice to the objecting
State, despite its objections. Thus (aj the reserving State would
become a party to the convention, thereby gaining the considerable

degree of credit or prestige which may be involved,by participation
in this type of convention; (6) it would maintain its reservations,
which might well be so far reaching as to make its participation
little more than nominal and not involve it in any real commitments;
while (cj the objecting State would be obliged to carry out the

convention nonetheless, and to do so in full, except in so far asany
particular obligation under it could be regarded as operating in a
purelv contractual wav 1. This uosition. it is submitted. must
consdtute a fatal legai objection'to the application of the Pan-
Amencan system to the United Nations type of convention, because,

on accountof the nature of these conventions, the system cannot be
applied to them without losing precisely those characteristics which
alone justify its use in other fields, and constitute one of its chief
raisons d'être.

The fact thata convention. lakenas amhole,iç of the socior Iaw-making type,
does not of course preclude the possibility that particular articlesin itmay bri capable
of operatinain a contractualmanner as between State and State. Thuç, for instance,
ifareserv'tion is made in regard toan article ia convention which provides for
arbitrationor judicial settlementin the event of disputes,it is manifest that an
objecting State would not be obligrd to go to arbitrationor judicial settlement
specifically attheinstanceoftbereserv Stiteg. But.(aj it would still remain bound
to do so at the instance of al1 the other parties. iuhereas the reserving State would
never be bound to do so at all-a position of complete unbalance;and (b) evenits
right to refuse arbitrationor judicial settlementto the reserving Stateas çuch,
might prove illusory because, precisely on accaunt of the nature of a conventofn
the Genocide type, a breach of its obligations would bea breach generally,not a
breach committed towards a given party specifically.Any party could request
arbih-ation or judicial settlemenand the rïserving State could easily arrange for
çome friendly State to do this.68 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

type under discussion, the position is quite different. These conven-
tions involve mainly the assumption of duties and obligations. They
seldom involve the acquisition of direct rights for the parties, qua
States (other than a right to the execution of the convention by
the other parties), and such benefits as ensue from them are of an
intangible and indirect character. This is because the purpose and
effect of the conventions is mainly social. Even where economic,
they are directed more to the general improvement of economic
conditions than to any specific exchange of economic benefits
between the parties as such. Any benefits resulting from these
conventions will be the consequence chiefly of the general improve-
ment in world order and conditions to which they may be expected
to lead, if al1 concerned carry out their obligations under them.
This situation, it is clear, not only offers no particular deterrentto
the making of reservations, but may even be an encouragement to

it, since a State ~vbichis successful in securing such reservations,
limits (it may be substantially) the scope of its obligation, while not
thereby surrendenng any tangible or immediate benefit. Thus the
application of any system which would facilitate the making of
reservations to this type of convention is to be deprecated, even if
it were free from the serions legal objections akeady noticed.

30. Nor is this quite all. States do not as a rule become parties to
ordinary commercial and technical conventions from any ulterior
motive. They do so mainly on account of the tangible advantages
ta he gained under the provisions of the convention itself. Apart
from such advantages, there is no object in becoming a party. But
with conventions of the law-making or social type, which involve
mainly the assumption of duties-and possibly onerous duties at
that-with littlein the way of any immediate, direct or tangible
benefit, the motives for becoming a party to them are more com-
plex. These may of course consist simply in a desire by the State
concerned to play its part as a good member of international
society. But participation in this type of convention may also have
a prestige or propaganda value. At the very least, the State which
participates avoids the odinm or criticism which may be entailed by
remaining out. In brief, it is liable to be the case with this type of

convention that the main motive for participation lies not in the
direct advantages to be derived under the convention itself, but
simply in those to be derived from the statusof beinga partyto the
convention.
31. If this is so, it is easy to see that (leaving moral considera-
tions aside) the maximum benefit would be gained by the State

which succeeded in obtaining for itself the status of being a party,
while assuming as little as possible of the obligations involved ;and
it is hardly too much to say that the Pan-American system could
not be more ideally suited to the achievement of this purpose if it
had been specially devised to make it possible. Even if it were WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM 69

modified to the extent of compelling would-be reservers to obtain
a certain number of consents to their proposed reservations before

being allowed to ratify or accede suhject to these reservations', it
would be a simple matter for a group of States ta fulfil this condition
by agreeing on a number of reservations which they would al1
accept inter se, and thereupon to hecome parties to a convention

which they would only be bound to carry out in part, while the rest
of the world had to carry it out in full, yet nevertheless to enjoy
the status and prestige of technically being parties. It is no answer
to Say that the other States could equally have made similar reserv-

ations had they so desired, because on that basis there ceases to be
any point in drawing up conventions in given terms at all. In
connexion with such instruments as the draft Covenant on Human

Rights, the Genocide Convention, and others, this position could
only be gravely prejudicial to the name and work of the United
Nations.

CONCLUSION IN REGARD TO FIRST TWO QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO
THE COURT

32. It is submitted that the Pan-American system is inapplicable

to the case of the GenocideConvention for two fundamentalreasons :
(1) hecause the system does not derive from any general principle

of law but depends for its validity on special agreement such as
exists between the States of the Pan-Amencan Union as regards
conventions negotiated under the auspices of the Union :and no
such agreement has been entered into by Members of the United

Nations for application either to United Nations conventions in
general, or to the Genocide Convention in particular ;

(2) because United Nations conventions of the law-making,
social or system-creating type, to which the Genocide Convention
belongs, differ fundamentally in their nature from the type of

In its actual fom (see paragraph 21above), and if it has been correctly under-
çtood. the Pan-American system enables the reserving State to become a party at
once and as of right, and moreover to count as such for the purpose of making"_1
the number required to bring the convention into force, the questiof how far its
reservationsare accçpted or rejected only being gone into afterwardOn fhafbasis

it would theoreticallbe possible foacountryto become (nominally) aparty to such
instruments in the Covenant on Human Rights.01 the Genocide Convention,
although it had made reservations on almost al1 the provisions of the convention.
and these reservationshad been objected to by al1or ncarly al1 the other actuaor
potential parties. Neverthelesits ratification would count for bringing the conven-
tion into force, and it would bea party to the convention though the convention
would not be in force bctwcen it and any of the other partiesor only one or two
of them. Even if this is vedtrctio aabsurdum and unlikely to occurin practice, it
does not alter the fact that there must be something legally unsound about a system
under which such resiiltare possible,even if unlikelyUnder the orthodox system
these could not occur. This point really raises the deeper issue of what constitutes
a truc acceptance or ratificatioof,or accession to,a convention, but discussion
of thismuçt be leftovrr until a later occasion.7O \\'RITTES STATEMEST OF THE USITED KISGDOII

conventioii for which the Pan-American system \vas devised, and
the application of that system to them would be inconsistent with
their basic character and would lead to inadmissible anomalies and
contradictions.

33. It is therefore sub~nitted that the first question addressed to
thc Court must be answered in the negative, since, if an affirmative
answer cannot (for the foregoing reasons) be based on the applica-

tion of the Pan-American system, it would have to be hased on the
vie\\, that an absolute inhererit right is possessed by States not
merely to make unilateral reservations at will, but also to become
parties to the Convention concerned subject to these reservations,
even where formal objection had been made by other legitimately
interested States. For the reasons giveii in paragraphs 9-16 above,
however, it is submitted that this view is contrary to al1normal and
accepted legal principle and is untenable.

34. Thcre being na other basis on whicb an affirmative answer
could he given to the first question, a iiegative answer necessarily
follows'. Since the second question prcsupposes an affirmative

answer to the first, it follo\vs equally that the second question does
not arise.

THlRD QUESTION

35. The third of the questions addressed to the Court, if of soine-
what smaller practical importance, involves issues which are
scarcely less far reaching as regards the fundamental processes of
concluding multilateral international conventions. In effect it

iiivolves the basic issue : what is the convention. which has been
concluded and which those who took part in negotiating it are
eiititled to sign, ratify or accede to,-is it the convention as origin-
ally drawn up, or is it the convention as it may (in substance) he
altered by the effect of subsequeiit reservations which those States
which happeii at the time to have bccome parties to it may be
willing to accept,but \\,hich others, potentially but not yet actually
parties, are not, or \vould not be, willing to accept ?

36. In order to appreciate exactly what is in\rol\~ed,it is necessary
to realize that the third question implicitly assumes a negative
answer to the first question, since if it is found that, on one ground
or another, States can becomc parties to conventions while main-

taining reservations which have been formally objected to by other
States, then it becomes largely pointless to enquire who has the
riglit of objection, since no objection at al1can be effective to prevent

' This is not to say that tharenot nlso strong positrçasonçfor a negative
answer to the first question, and these nill bedevelopeaalater stageIn the
prrsent çtatement ihîs beendeemed more helpfulto consider the only two bases
legallyunsound and inadmissible in the present connexion.y both of them are WRITTES STATE35ENT OF THE USITED KlSGDOhl 7I

participation in the convention by the reserving State. In such
cases,, objection only becomes material as regards the subsequent
question of the efect of the reservation as between the reserving
and ohjecting States, and this in its turn presupposes that both
those States are parties to the convention, otherwise that question
cannot arise. It is because the third question thus presupposes a
negative answer to the first, that it becomes material to enquire
what classes of States can, by means of an objection to a reserv-
ation, prevent participation in a convention by the reserving State

unless the latter abandons the reservation, and can thus render that
State's ratification or accessioninoperative.
37. This important right must clearly be confined to States
having a legitimate interest in the matter ;and this, from the point
of view'of the Court, must mean a legal interest derived from the
possession of a legal right. On the other hand, it is submitted that

'ifa legalinterest can in fact be shown to exist for certain categories
of States in addition to actual parties, and if the protection of that
interest requires a right of effective objection' to a reservation,
such a right must be presumed to exist in the absence of any
circumstances indicating that it has been surrendered or lost. This
must be stressed, because the argument usually advanced against
a right of objection on the part of States not parties, is that it would
enable a State which did not intend to become, and never did
hecome a party to the convention concemed, to prevent indefinitely

the participation of a State whose reservations did not meet with
objection from any other quarter. In so far as this may be true,
however, it would not mean more than that it may be desirable to
prevent abuses by placing or postulating some limitation on the
right concerned, or the existence of some time-limit after which the
force of an objection is lost unless the objecting State has become a
party. This point is further discussed in the concluding paragraphs
43 and 44 helow. But in any case it would not alter the fact that if
an initial right exists, it requires protection,, at any rate in the
initial stages.

38. Very little reflexion is necessary in order to see that al1
, States upon which a right to becorne parties to a given convention
has been conferred, thereby i$so facto possess a legal right which
is not possessed by States upon whom this right has not been
conferred, or who do not come within the category (or do not
fulfil the conditions) specified for participation. These States in

fact possess a right to become parties, and this right is a definite
legal right. Nor is this position affected by the fact that in many
cases no special conditions are laid down, and the convention is
open to participation on the part of al1 States. Al1 such rights

This wilbe used as a convenient tenu to dffcribe an objection that has the
effect opreventing participation by the reserving Staofrendering its ratih-
cation or accession inoperative unleçs it abandons the reservation.72 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE USITED KINGDOhl

normally derive /rom the convention itselj. It is well known that
conventions have a certain operative force as regards their forma1
clauses even before they come substantively into force, and the
most obvious example of this consists precisely in those clauses

of a convention which specify when or in what circumstances it
is to come into force. Clearly any snch clause must have a force
and validity ab initio, not dependent on or deriving from the
actual entry into force of the convention 1. The same applies to
clauses providing for instance that the convention is to remain
open for signature until a certain date, that after that date it
may be acceded to by any State which has not signed it, that

signatures require to be completed by ratification, etc. Thus every
convention, expressly or by implication, indicates what States
have a right to become parties to it, or altematively that al1
States have such a right. This right is a definite jnridical right
which the State possessing it cannot legally be prevented from.
exercising so long as it accepts the text of the convention as drajted

and without modifications or reseruations.
39. Once it is established that a juridical right exists, it follows
automatically that the State concerned mnst possess a furthcr
right of legal objection to any act which \vould impair the basic

right, or prejudice its exercise. This leads to the question: what
does the basic right consist of ? It is not a mere right to become a
party to a convention. It is a nght to become a party to a particular
convention, i.e. to become a party to the convention concerned
in the form in \%,hichit was originally concluded, or in other words
in the form in which the text was drawn up and stood at the time
when the right to become a party \vas conferred and became

operative. This must be so, because otherwise it would not be that
convention, but a different convention, upon which the right would
operate.
40. Now it is submitted that \\,hile, in form, reservations may

leave the actual text of a convention unchanged, the effect of them
is to alter the siibstance or balance of the convention by adding to
it conditions or exceptions in favour of the reserving State which
did iiot figure in the original text,and formed no part of the conven-

' Strictly speüking, al1 such clnuses aught to be placed in a separate protocol
having immediatc forcc,for tçchnically, the effofincluding them us parof an
instrument which doçs iiot come into force until later, is that they themselvrs have
no initial force, wherofscourse their whoraismzd'élreis to have it. However, it
has bçcome customary. for reasonsof convenience, to include these provisions as
part of the actual text of the convention, and the process assumesa tacit agreement
on the part of those drawing it up that these clauses shall be effective from the date
on which the convention was initially signed or apeneforsignature. The same
quarters or dçpositary government ororganiration, some of which involve action
prior to the corning into force of the convention, e.g. the communication to other
governments of authenticated copies of the text, the notificatiof signatures
made or ratifications received. etc. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UXITED KINGDOM 73
tion as drafted, and as it stood when the right to become a party
to it arose. From this, it follows automatically as a juridical neces-
sity, that unless a right of effective objection to reservations

exists on the part ofal1States having a right to become parties to a
convention-which is ex hy$othesi a right to becomc a party to a
particular convention having a particular text-this right is liable
to be impaired and prejudiced by the introduction of reservations
which may have the effect of altering the whole nature and balance
of the convention and of the obligations it provides for. In such an
event, the States concerned (unless possessed of a right of effective
objection) are faced with the alternative of foregoing entirely their
right to participate in the convention or else ofbecomingpartiesto
what is in effect a different convention.

41. Moreover, the view that the right of effective objection
should be confined to actual parties, fails entirely to take account
of the position which might arise at the moment when no actual
parties to the convention existed, because no State had yet ratified
or acceded to it. Unless al1 the potential parties have a right ut
thatstage to prevent participation by a State that attemptsto make
reservations they object to,.any State could ratify with reservations
(in regard perhaps to matters purposely included in the convention
when it \\-as drawn up),and this ratification and these reservations

would be effective and binding on the other States concerned for
al1 time, because at the moment when they were made, no actual
parties existed, able to enter an effective objection. Even if this
particular difficulty can be met (as is in effect suggested in para-
graphs 43 and 44 below) by recognizing for potentialpartiesaright
of effective objection which, however, they can only ultimately
maintain as effective if they become or intend to become actual
parties to the convention, nevertheless the point is one which
demonstrates the absolute necessity that potential parties should,
basically and in principle, be possessed of at any rate a $rima facie
right of effective objection,if their position as potential parties to a
particular instrument as drafted is not to be liable to serious

prejudice.
42. Having established the existence of a legal interest in the
matter, and the fact that this interest would be impaired or preju-
diced unless potential partieshave a right of effective objection to
reservations, it is not, strictly speaking, necessary to go any further
in order to demonstrate that the right in question is not confined to
actual parties, but rnust extend also to potential parties. However,
the necessity for this conclusion can be strikingly illustrated by

considering some of the other possible consequences which rnight
ensue if such a right on the part of potential parties were not
recognized. This can most conveniently be done by quoting a
passage from certain of the observations made in the Sixth Com-
mittee of the General Assembly by the United Kingdorn represent- WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM 75
common aim and acting in concert, to bring a convention into
force subject to important reservations which they themselves
would al1 make and agree to, and thus face forty or fifty other
conntries, signatories and potentiai ratifiers, with a situation in
which they must either accept these reservations willy-nilly, or
else give up ail idea of participation in the convention. We Say,
Mr. President, that sucha process would be destructive of all the
rights of a signatory. It would be destructive of al1 confidence
that when the text of a treaty or convention has been drawn up
and signed-it may be after weeks of difficult and protracted
negotiation-that text is final and the treaty or convention will
remain as signed. It would enable States or groups of States in
effect to reintroduce into the convention things which had been
expressly rejected in the course of its negotiation-alternatively
to delete from it things which bad been expressly inclnded as
being of vital importance. This indeed is precisely what is proposed
by the various reservations made to the Genocide Convention and
thThese very disquieting results twould ail be rendered possible
by the adoption of a system such as that suggested by the Secret-
ariat, ana th,at is why we feel obliged to oppose that system
although we appreciate the reasons which have led the Secretariat
to advocate it, and recognize that it has advantages as regards
certainty and simplicity..Moreover we feel that this system wiU
be liable to have seriously detrimental effects on the prospects of
obtaining signatures to United Nations conventions. If, after what
is often an immense expenditure of time and trouble in drawing
up a convention, Members of the United Nations cannot feel any
certainty that further attempts to change the text by entering
reservations will not be made-if they feel, or have reason to
think, that by the time they are able to ratify they may be faced
with the existence of reservations to which they will be powerless
to object, will they not hesitate a good deal to sign at all-or
at any rate will they not tend to delay their signaturesFor our
part, given the many consultations and possibly the legislation
reqnired before we can become parties to an international con-
tonaitext about which there was no finality, and where questions
supposed to be settled in the course of drafting the text could
be reopened in the form of reservations."

CONCLUSION IN REGARD TO THE THIRD QUESTION

43. The United Kingdom Government fully recognizes that
there may be certain practical objections to the exercise of an
unlimited right of objection on the part ofpotential parties, in thé
sense of a right of indefinite duration. Some of these objections, in
relation to United Nations conventions, are set out in paragraphs
41-45 of the report of the Secretary-General already referred to
(Document A/X~~Z )nd need not be further particularized here.
The United Kingdom.always was, and still is, ready ta discuss with
other Members of the United Nations the question of putting some
6 WRITTE'I STATEMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
76
limitation on thenght of potential parties. Equally, the Court may
consider itcorrect and possible, on purely legal grounds, to say that
a right to become a party to a convention, if not exercised within a

reasonable time, and failing any special circumstances to account
for the delay, ceases to constitute a valid basis for offenng or
maintaining objections to reservations desired by other States l.
In support of such a view, it could be argued that since the right of
objection on the part of potential parties exists solely in order to
protect their right to becomeparties to the convention as drafted,
it ceases to exist once it becomes manifest either that the State
concemed does not intend to become a party, or is delaying so long

that it must be deemed to have given up its previous direct legal
interest in keeping the convention to its original form.
44. However, the very fact that certain limitations of a legal
character may be placed on the exercise of the right, would itself

presuppose that the right, as an initial right, existed. For al1these
reasons, the United Kingdom Government considers that the
broad answer to the third question addressed to the Court, and in
relation to both its sub-heads (a) and (b), should.be to the effect
thatthe answer.to the first question would be the same (Le.negative)
not only in the case contemplated by that question, but also in bath
the cases envisaged by the third question. If the Court accepts this
view, it may think fitto add a ryder to the effect that this answer

assumes that the circumstances are iiot such as to indicate either a
definite intention on the part of the objecting State not to ratify or
accede, or the probability that ratification or accession will be
indefinitely delayed.

(Signed) G. G. FITZMAURICE.
Agent for the Government
of the United Kingdom
Foreign Office,

January, 1951.

1 As to what would constitute a reasonable time, it is evident that no definite
lirnits can be laid down,but it should nat bedifficult to determine what cases must
fall outside the limit. having regard to the time normally required by States to
regard also to the nature ofc convention aud the fact that States often do noting
ratifyoraccede to conventions for torefour years.6. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
OF THE UNITED NATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Pages

1. INTRODUCTION .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
II. HISTORY OF THE GENOCIDE CONVENTIO :N
-4. The Drafting of the Genocide Convention . . . . . . 86
B. Omission from the Convention of an Article concerning
Reseruations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
C. Discussion, during the Drafting of the Convention,ofArticles
which subsequently became the Subject of Reseniatio. . 89
Article IV . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . 89
Article VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
ArticleVI1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g0
Article IX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Article XII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
D. General Discussion of "Reseruations" in the Sixth Com-
mittee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
111. STATUS OF ~IGNATURESR ,ATIFICATIONS AND ACCESSION.S 95
IV. RESERVATION TO THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION A ND PROCE-
DURE OF THE SECRETARY-GENER ALLATING THERETO :
A. Reservations madeon Signature . . . . . . . . . . 97
B. Reservations made in Instruments of Ratification and
Accession:
I.Reservations of the Philippines. . . . . . . . 99
2.Reservations of Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . IOO
3. Reservations of Romania . . . . . . . . . . 101
4.Reservations of Poland . . . . . . . . . . roz
5. Reservations of Czechoslovaki. . . . . . . . 103
V. POSITION SAKEN BY STATES IN CORRESPONDEN COENCERNING
RESERVATION SO THE GENOCIDE CONVENTIO :N
A. Ecuador. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
B. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. . . . . . . 104
C. Guatemala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
D. The United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
E. Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

F. El Salvador. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
G. Viet Nam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
H. France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xog
1. Cambodia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
J. The Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIO
-- WRITTES STATEhlEST OF THE U91TED NATIONS
78

LIST OF ANNEXED DOCUMENTS

-
Annexed document
number
English French
PART ONE.-NOTIFICATION BY THE SECRETARY-
GENERAL OF THE DEPOSIT OF TWENTY INSTRU-
MENTS OF RATIFICATION OR ACCESSION :

1. Notification (19 October, 1950) I 4
II. Procès-verbal(14 October, 1950) 2 2

III. Comgendum to notification (1 November,
1950) 3 5
PART Two.-NOTIFICATIONS BY THE SECRETARY-
GENERAL OF RESERYATIONS :

1. Notifications of reservations made at sig-
nature by the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics :

A. Notification to States which had not yet
ratified or acceded :
I. Notification (30 December, 1949) 6 9
2. Procès-verbaolf s-gnature (16December,
1949)
3. Comgendum to notification (13 Janu-
as.. 1950)

B. Notification to States which had already
ratified:
I. Notification (30 December, 1949)
2. Procès-verbalof signature (16 Decem-
ber. 1949)
C. Letter of the Assistant Secretary-General

to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
(13 January. 1950)
II. Notifications of reservations made at sig-
nature by the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist
Republic :

A. Notification to States which had not yet
ratified or acceded :
I. Notification (30 December, 1949)
2. Procès-verbalof signature (16 Decem-
ber. 1949)

B. Kotification to States wbich had already
ratified:
I. Notification (30 December, 1949)
2. Procès-verbalof signature (16 Decem-
ber. 1949) WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED
Annexed document
number
English French
C. Letter of the Assistant Secretary-Generai
to the Byelorussian Soviet Sociaiist
Republic (13 January, 1950)

III. Notification of reservationsmade at signature
by the Ukrainian Soviet Sociaiist Republic :

A. Notification to States which had not yet
ratified or acceded :
1. Notification (29 December, 1949)
2. Procès-verbalof signature (16 Decem-
'ber.,1949)
3. Comgendum to notification (13 Janu-

ar~. 19~0)
B. Notification to States which had aiready
ratified :
1. Notification (30 December, 1949)
2. Procès-verbalof signature (16 Decem-

ber. 1949)
C. Letter of the Assistant Secretary-Generai
to the Ukrainian Soviet Sociaiist Republic
(13 Jannas.. 1950)

IV. Notifications of reservations made at sig-
nature by Czechoslovakia :
A. Notification to States which had not yet

ratified or acceded :
I. Notification (29 December, 1949)
2. Procès-verbalof signature (28 Decem-
ber, 1949)
B. Notification to States which bad aiready

ratified or acceded :
I. Notification (30 December, 1949)
2. Procès-verbalof signature (28 Decem-
ber, 1949)
C. Letter of the Assistant Secretary-GenerG
to Czechoslovakia (13 January, 1950)

V. Notifications of reservations in the instru-
ment of ratification of the Philippines :

A. Notification to States which had not yet
ratified or acceded :
1. Notification (21 July, 1950)
2. Instrument of ratification

B. Notification to States which bad already
ratified or acceded :
I. Notification (31 July, 1950)
2. Instmment of ratification8 O WRITTEN STATEME'IT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Annexed document
nurnber
English French
C. Letter of the Generai Counsel and Prin-
cipal Director ta the Philippines (31 July,
1950) 38

VI. Notifications of reservations in the instru-
ment of accession of Bulgaria :

A. Notification to States which had not yet
ratified or acceded :
I. Notification (3 August, 1950)
2. Instrument of accession

B. Notification to States which had already
ratified or acceded :
I. Notification (3 August, 1950)
2. Instrument of accession

C. Letter of the Generai Counsel and Prin-
cipal Director to Bulgaria (3 August,
1950)

VII. Notifications of reservations in the instru-
ment of accession of Romania :

A. Notification to States which had not yet
ratified or acceded :
I. Notificatiou (21 November, 1950)
2. Reservations of Romania

B. Notification to States which had already
ratified or acceded :
I. Notification (21 November. 1950)
2. Reservations of Romania

VIII. Notifications of reservations in the instru-
ment of accession of Poland :
A. Notification to States which had not yet

ratified or acceded :
1. Notification (29 November, 1950)
2. Instrument of accession
B. Notificatiou to States which had already
ratified or acceded :

1. Notification (18 December, 1950)
2. Instrument of accession
C. Letter of the Assistant Secretary-General
to Poland (7 December, 1950)

IX. Notifications of receipt of instrument of rati-
fication of Czechoslovakia maintaining
reservations : . WRITTEII STATEMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS 81

Annexed document
number
English French
A. Notification ta ali States concerned
(5 Januas., 1951) 58 59
B. Letter of the Assistant Secretary-General
ta Czechoslovakia (12 January, 1951) 60

OF RESERVATIONS :

1. Letter to Indonesia :

A. Letter (27 March, 1950) 61
B. Annexes to letter :
I. Procès-verbal of signature of the
U.S.S.R. (16 Decemher, 1949) 7

z. Procès-verbalof signature of the Byelo-
russian S.S:R. (16 December, 1949) 13
3. Procès-verbao lfsignature ofthe Ukrain-
ian S.S.R. (16 December, 1949) 18
4. Procès-verbal of signature of Czecho-

slovakia (28 December, 1949) 23
II. Letter to Liechtenstein :

A. ett ter (IO ~~ril, 1950) 62
B. Annexes to letter
(Identical with annexes to letter to
Indonesia)

III. Letter ta Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos : . .

A. Letter (31 May, 1950)
63
B. Annexes to letter
(Identical with annexes to letter to
Liechtenstein)

IV. Letter ta the Federal Republic of Germany.:
A. Letter (20 December, 1950) 64

B. Annexes to letter
nesia with the addition of.the followingo-:)- .

. '
1..Instrument 'of ratification of the Phil-
ippines . ..33 ..
2. Instrument of accession of Bulg$ria. . 40

3. Reservations of Rgmania . , 47
4. Instrument of accession of Poland . 5382 WRITTEX STATEMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Annexed document
number
Enalish French

WITH, OR OBJECTION TO, THE FOREGOING RESER-
VATIONS :

1. Correspondence concerning the position of
Ecuador :

A. Circular note (j May, 1950)
B. Annexes to circular note :

I. Note of Ecuador (IO February, 1950)
2. Letter of the Assistant Secretary-
General to Ecuador (21 Marcb, 1950)
3. Note of Ecuador (31 March, 1950)

C. Note of Ecuador (16 Augnst, 1950)

II. Correspondence concerning the position of
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics :

A. Letter of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (2March, 1950)
B. Letter of the Secretary-General(z3 March,

1950)
C. Letter of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (IO October, 1950)

III. Correspondence concerning the position of
Guatemala :

A. Circular note (2 August, 1950)
B. Annexes to circuiar note : . '

1. Letter of the Assistant Secretary-
General to Guatemala (19 Januay,
1950)
2. Note of Guatemala (16 June, 1950)
3. Letter of the General Counsel and
Principal Director to Guatemala

(14 J~Y, 1950)
C. Circula note (7 September, 1950)
D. Annex to circular note :

Note of Guatemala (31 Juiy, 1950)
E. Circular note (18 October, 1950)

F. Annex to circular note :
Note of Guatemala (26 September,
1950) WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED '1
Annexeù document
number
English French
IV. Letters froni the United Kingdom :

A. Letter of the United Kingdom (31 July,
1950)
B: Letter of the United Kingdom (30 Sep
temher, 1950)

C. Letter of the United Kingdom (6 Decem-
ber. 1950)

V. Correspondence concerning the position of
Australia :

A. Circular note (4 October, 1950)
B. Annex to circular note :
Letter of Australia (26 September,

1950)
C. Circular note (II December, 1950)
D. Annex to circular note :

Letter of Australia (15 November,
1950)
E. Letter of the Philippines (15 December.
1950)

RATIFYING OR ACCEDING, AFTER NOTICE OF
RESERVATION S,ITHOUT COMMENT THEREON :

1. Letter to Panama (13 January, 1950)
II. Letter to Guatemala (19 January, 1950)

III. Letter to Israel (15 March, 1950)
IV. Letter to Monaco (IO April, 1950)

V. Letter to Hashemite Jordan (4 May.
1950)
VI. Letter to Liberia (19 June, 1950)

VII. Letter to Saudi Arahia (21 July, 1950)
VIII. Letter to Turkey (7 August, 1950)

IX. Letter to Viet Nam (30 August, 1950)
X. Letter to Yugoslavia (7 September, rg50)

XI. Letter to El Salvador (6 October, 1950)
XII. Letter to Ceylon (15 November, 1950)

XIII. Letter to Cambodia (15 November, 1950)
XIV. Letter to Costa Rica (15 November,
1950)S4 WRITTES STATELIEST OF THE USITED NATIONS
~nnexed document
nurnber
English French
I 18
XV. Letter to France (15 November, 1950)
XVI. Letter to Haiti (15 November, 1950) 119
120
XVII. Letter to Korea (15 November, 1950)
XVIII. Letter to Laos (12 January, 1951) 121

PART SIX.-REPLIES OF GOVERNMENTS TO THE
FOREGOING :

1. Correspondence coricerning the position of
El Salvador :
A. Circular note (25 November, 1950)

B. Annex to circular note :
Note of El Salvador (27 October. 1950)

II. Correspondence conceming the. position of
Viet Nam :

A. Circular note (6 December, 1950)
B. Annex to circular note :
Letter of Viet Nam (3November, 1950)

C. Letter of Viet ,Nam (22 December, 1950)

D. Letter of the Assistant Secretary-General
(12 January, 1951)
III. Correspondence concerning the position of
France :

A. Letter of France (6December. ~gjo)

B. Letter of the Assistant Secretary-General
(12 January, 1951)
IV. Correspondence concerning the position of
Cambodia :

-4. Letter of Camhodia (6 December, 1950)
B. Letter of the Assistant Secretary-General

(12 January, 1951) WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS 85

1. INTRODUCTION

The General Asiembly of the United Nations at its 305th plenary

meeting on 16 November, 1950, adopted a Resolution (Document
A/I~I~) requesting the International Court of Justice to give an
advisory opinion on the following questions :
"In so far as concerns the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment ofthe CrimeofGenocide.in theevent ofa State rat if vin^
or iiccedingto rlie Convention iiibjrct to;Irrwr\.:ttioii in;idr eiilir;
on ratificationoronacccssioii,oronsiniiaturcfollo\i.edby ratilication:
.
1. Can the reserving State be regarded as being a party to
the Convention while still maintaining its reservation if
the reservation is objected to by one or more of the
parties to the Convention but not by others ?
II. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, what is
the effect of the reservation as between the reserving
State and:

(a) The &rties which object to the reservation ?
(b) Those which accept it ?
III. What would be the legal effect as regards the answer
to question 1 if an objection to a reservation is made:
,. (a) By a signatory which has not yet ratified ?
(b) By a State entitled to sign or accede but which bas
not yet done so ?"

By the same Resolution the General Assembly invited the Inter-
national Law Commission to study the question of reservations to
multilateral conventions both from the point of view of codification
and from that of the progressive development of international law,
and to prepare a report thereon, and instructed the Secretary-
General, pending the rendering of the advisory opinion, the receipt

of the report of the International Law Commission and further
action by the Assembly, to follow his prior practice with respect to
the 'receipt of reservations and notification and solicitation of
approvals thereof, al1without prejudice to any recommendation on
the subject by the General Assembly at its sixth session.
On 17 November, 1950, the Secretary-General transmitted to the
International Court of Justice a certified copy of the General
Assembly's Resolution requesting the advisory opinion. On
14 December, 1950, the Secretary-General also transmitted to the
Court a dossier containing al1records and documents relating to the

consideration of the agenda item "Reservations to Multilateral
ConventionsWby the General Assembly and by its Sixtb Committee
at the fifth session of the Assembly.
Thus a question intimately concerning the Secretary-General's
function as depositary of an important body of multilateral conven-86 WRITTEN STATEIIIEKT OF THE UNITED NATIONS

tions has been brought before the Court. The Secretary-General
has consequently deemed it his duty to submit a written statement
to the Court, in the hope that the information contained may be of
assistance in the consideration of thematter. He will continue to be
at the disposa1 of the Court during the whole proceedings.
The statement will first set out a brief history of the drafting of
the Genocide Convention, with special reference to discussions
concerning reservations. Then a complete account will be given of.

the procedure followed by the Secretary-General in connexion with
signatures, ratifications and accessions with reservations to the
Genocide Convention.

II. HISTORY OF THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION

A. The Drafting of the Genocide Convention

The subject of genocidewas brought before the General Assembly
dunng the second part of its first session by Cuba, India and
Panama. By Resolution 96 (1),adopted unanimously on II Decem-

ber, 1946, the General Assembly took note that genocide shocked
the conscience of mankind, resulted in great losses to humanity,
and was contrary to moral law and to the spirit and aims of the
United Nations, that many instances of such crimes had occurred,
and that the punishment of genocide was a matter of international
concern ;it affirmed that genocide was a crime under international
law, and itrequested the Economic and SocialCouncil to undertake
the necessarv studies with a view to drawing ur,-a draft convention
on the crime of genocide.
The Economic and Social Council accordingly, by Resolution 47
(IV) of 28 March. 1047. instructed the Secretarv-General to under-
, .,.
take the necessary studies with the assistance of experts in the field
of international and criminal law, and further instructed him after
consultation with the General Assembly Committee on the Develop-
ment and Codification of International Law and, if feasible, the
Commission on Human Rights, and after reference to aU Member
Governments for comments, to submit a draft convention on the
crime of genocide to the next session of the Council.
The Secretary-General thereupon drew up a draft in consultation
with three experts, Professors Donnedieu de Vabres, Lemkin and
Pella. This draft (Document E/447) was then circulated to Member
Govemments. The Committee on the Development and Codification
of International Law felt itself unable to express any opinion, on

the draft as no commeuts of Member Govemments had yet been
received, and the Commission on Human Rights did not meet before
the opening of the next session of the Economic and Social Council.
The Economic and Social Council by Resolution 77 (V) of
6 August, 1947, called upon Member Governments to submit their
comments on the draft convention promptly, decided to inform the WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS 87

General Assembly that it proposed to proceed with the consider-
ation of the question as rapidly as possible, and requested the
Secretary-General to transmit the draft to the General Assembly,
together with any comments received.
The General Assembly considered the draft at its second session,
and on 21 November, 1947, adopted Resolution 180 (II) by which
it reaffirmed its Resolution of II December, 1946, again declared
genocide to be an international crime, adding that it entailed
national and international responsibility on thepart of individuals

and States,and requested the Economic and Social Council to sub-
mit a re~ort and a draft convention on -enocide to the next regular
session of'the Assembly.
The Economic and Social Council by Resolution 117 (VI) of
? March. 1a48. established an Ad Hoc Committee on Genocide.
composed of ihe following Members of the Council :China, France,
Lebanon, Poland, the United States of America, the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics and Venezuela. The Committee was
instructed to prepare a draft convention taking into consideration
the Secretary-General's draft (Document E/447), the comments of
the Member Governments thereon (Documents A/401, A/~+or/Add.I,

A/4or/Add. 2, A/qor/Add. 3, E/623, E/623/Add. 2, E/623/Add. 3
and E/623/Add. 4) and other drafts on the matter submitted by
any Member Government (Documents El623 and E/623/Add. 1).
The Ad Hoc Committee met at Lake Success from 5 April to
IO May, 1948, and on 30 April adopted a draft convention (Docu-
ment E/794. pp. 18-19) by a vote of five in favour to one against
(The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), with one abstention
(Poland) (Document E/AC.z5/SR.z6, pp. 4-7).
The Economic and Social Council was unable, at its seventh
session, to give detailed consideration to the report of the AdHoc
Committee, but on 26 August, 1948, by Resolution 153 (VII)
decided to transmit the draft convention and report to the General

Assembly, together with the records of the proceedings of the
Council at its seventh session on the subject.
The General Assembly at its 14znd plenary meeting on 24 Sep-
tember, 1948, decided to refer the matter to the Sisth Committec
for consideration and report. The Sixth Committee considered the
subject from its 67th to 110th meetings held between 5 October
and 9 November, 1948, and made extensive modifications in the
text. The Committee approved the draft convention as revised at
its 13znd meeting on I December, 1948. by a vote of 30 to none,
with eight abstentions (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic,
Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic,

Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United
Kingdom and Yugoslavia). The Sixth Committee's report (Docu-
ment A1760& Corr. 2)was discussed at its 178th and 179th plenary
meetings by the General Assembly, which at the latter meeting on88 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS

9 December, 1948, adopted Resolution 260 (III), approving the
test of the Convention, by a vote of 56 to none.
The Convention was accordingly opened for signature at Paris on
II December, 1948.

B. Omission from the Convention of an Article concerning Reser-
vations

The draft convention prepared by the Secretary-General and
circulated to governments included a heading "Article XVII
(Reservations)" (Document E/447, p; II), under which, however,
no proposed text was put fonvard. The comment on.the draft
(Document E/447, p. 55) expressed a doubt whether reservations
ought to be permitted and whether an article relating ta reserva-
tions ought to be included in the Convention, and made the follow-
ing observations :

"1. It would seem that reservations of a general scope have no
placein a conventionofthis kind whichdoesnot dealwith the private
interests of a State, but with the preservations of an element of
internationalorder.
For example, the Convention will or willnot protect this or that
human group. It is unthinkable that in that respect the scopeof,the
Convention should Vary according to the reservations possibly
accompanying accessionby certain States.
z. Perhaps in the course ofdiscussionin the General Assemblyit
will bepossible to allow certain limited reservations.
These reservations might be of two kinds : either reservations
which wouldbe definedby the Convention itself, and which all the
States wouldhave the option to express,or questions ofetail which
some States might wish to reserve and which the General Assembly
rnightdecide to allow."
Only one government commented on Article XVII of the Secre-
iary-General's draft. The United States of-America expressed the
view that "an article on the subject of 'reservations' should be
omitted" (Document A/4or/Add. 2, p. 15).

Dnring the course of its work the Ad Hoc Committee on Genocide
appointed a sub-committee, composed of the representatives of
Poland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Repnblics and the United
States of America, to study the final provisions of the Convention.
The siib-committee "saw no need for any reservations" (Document
E/AC. 25/10, p. 5), andthis conclusion was unanirnously adopted by
the full Ad Hoc Committee at its 23rd meeting on 4 May, 1948
(E/AC. zj/SR. 23, p. 7). Consequently the Ad Hoc Committee's
draft made no provision concerningreservations.
No proposa1for an article on reservations was made in the Sixth
Committee or in the plenary meetings of the General Assembly.
Consequently the text of the Convention as approved bythe General

Assembly on. 9 Decemher, 1948, does not contain any provision on
the subject. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE USITED NATIOSS S9

C. Disczcssion,dzcring the Drafting of the Convention, of Articles
which stcbsegzbentyecantethe Subjectof Reservations

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Byelorussian Soviet
Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and
Czechoslovakia signed the Convention with identical reservations
to Articles IX and XII. The same reservations were embodied in
the instruments of accession of Bulgaria,Romania and Poland and
maintained in the instrument of ratification of Czechoslovakia.

The instrument of ratification of the Philippines contained reserv-
ations to Articles IV, VI, VI1 and lx. It may, therefore, be useful
to give a brief account of the drafting of Articles IV, VI, VII,IX
and XII, with emphasis on the attitudes expressed by represent-
atives of States which subsequently submitted forma1 reservations.
Article IV. Article IV of the Convention, concerning persons
responsible for genocide, originated in Article V of the Ad Hoc
Committee's draft, adopted unanimously by that Committee at its
18th meeting on 23 April, 194s. This article \\.as discussed by the

Sixth Committee at its aznd, 93rd, 95th and 96th meetings between
5 and 9 Xovember, 1948. The Ad HocCommittee's phrase describ-
ing persons responsible was found satisfactory in the French text,
which read "desgo.tlvernants,des fonctio>tnairesou des ;barticziliers",
but considerahle effort was devoted to finding an English equivalent
for "gozivernants".which in the English text of the Ad Hoc Com-
mittee's draft read "Heads of State". Certain representatives of
constitutional monarchies pointed out that according to the consti-
tutions of their countries Heaàs of State enjoyed immunity and
could not, for that reason, be hrought to trial before a national
court. To meet these difficulties the Sixth Committee at its 95th
meeting adopted by a vote of 31 to 1,with II abstentions, a Nether-
lands amendment (document A/C.6/253) as amended hy Thailand,
whereby the English text came to read "constitutionally responsible

rulers. public officiaisor private individuals". This amendment was
opposed by the Philippines, which favoured the phrase "agents of
the State" (Officia1Records of the Third Session of the General
Assembly, Part 1, Sixth Committee, p. 340). The only statement
made in connexion with the adoption of the text was that of
Sweden concerning the responsibility imposed by the article with
respect to Members of Parliament, which was reproduced in the
report of the Sixth Committee (document A1760 PrCorr. 2, para-
graph 13).
Article VI. Article VI, concerning trials of persons charged with

genocide, was one of the most debated provisions of the Convention.
The Ad Hoc Committee's draft provided in Article VI1 that persons
charged with genocide or other acts enumerated by the Convention
should be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory
of which the act was committed or by a competent international 9O WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
tribunal. The question of an international penal tribunal aroused

long discussions in the Sixth Committee. At its 98th meeting on
IONovemher, 1948, the Sixth Committee decided by 23 votes to 19,
with 3 abstentions, to delete the words "or by a competent inter-
national tribunal" from the Ad Hoc Committee's draft. The Philip-
pines voted against deletion. France made a declaration regretting
the rejection of the principle of international punishment and
' stating that France would prohably find itself unable to sign such
a convention. After the completion of work by a drafting
committee, the Sixth Committee again took up the question
of an international penal tribunal at its 129th meeting on
3o\[November, 1948 At that meeting the Committee by a
vote of 33 (including the Philippines) to 9, with 6 abstentions,
adopted a proposa1 to reconsider the article. At the 130th
meeting on 30 November, 1948, a joint amendment proposed
hy the United States, France and Belgium was adopted by a vote

of 29 (including the Philippines) to 9, with 5 abstentions. This
amendment added the foliowing phrase to the text of Article VI :
"or hy such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction
with respect to such contracting parties as shall have accepted the
jurisdiction of such tribunal". Article VI as amended was then
adopted hy 27 votes to 5, with 8 abstentions. No declaration was
made by the Philippines in connexion with the adoption of the
article.

Article VII. Article VI1 of the final text, concerning extra-
dition. is substantiallvidentical with Article 1X of the Ad Hoc

making a change in phrasing was adopted at the 94th meeting of
the Sixth Committee on 8 November, 1948,andthe text as amended
was approved by a vote of 26 to 2, with 5 abstentions, at the
95th meeting on the same day. No declaration was made by the
Philippines concerning the article.

Article IX. Article IX, concerning submission of disputes to the
International Court of Justice, corresponds to Article XIV of the
draft prepared by the Secretary-General (Document E/447. pp. IO,
50)and to Article X of the Ad Hoc Committee's draft (Document
E/794. PP. 13, 19).
During the course of the Ad Hoc Committee's work therepresent-
atives .of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and of Poland
consistently opposed the inclusion of a provision conferring compul-
sory jurisdiction on the International Court of Justice. Article XIV
of the Secretariat's draft was considered at the twentieth
meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on 26 April, 1948. The Soviet
representative objected to the inclusion of the article on the ground
that matters concerning genocide should be handled by national

courts only ; defining genocide as coming under international WRIïTEN STATEIIIEKT OF THE USITED NATIOSS
9'
jurisdiction would be interfenng with the sorereign rights of States
(Document E/AC.zj/SR.20, p. 6). The Polish representative thought
it unnecessary to include the articlebid.). At the same meeting the
Com'mitteedecided by a vote of 5 to 2to accept the text of Article
XIV of the Secretariat's draft, and by a vote of 4 to 1, with
Iabstention. to add to it a proviso proposed by the United States
to the effect that no dispute should be submitted to the Inter-

national Court of Justice involving an issue which had been referred
to and was pending before or had been passed upon by a competent
international criminal tribunal. The whole text was adopted by
a vote of 4 to 3 (Document E/794, p. 14).
This article, which became Article X of theAd Hoc Committee's
draft, was considered again by the Committee at its 24th meeting
on 28 April, 1948. (Document E/AC.zj/SR.z4, pp. 12-13). The
representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics again
declared his opposition to the article, on the grounds that it must
inevitahly lead to intervention by an international court in the trial
of cases of genocide which should be heard by national courts in
accordance with their junsdictioii, and that the establishment of an
international jurisdiction for cases of genocide would constitute
intervention in the intemal affairs of States and would be a violation
of their sovereignty. This declaration was included in the report of

the Ad Hoc Committee (Document E/794, p. 14). Poland, which
likewise votrd against the article, made a declaration, also included
in the Cornmittee's report, objecting to the i'eferenceto an inter-
national criminal tribunal(ibid.).
In the Ad Huc Committee's vote on the whole text of the draft,
the Unioii of Soviet Socialist Republics voted against adoption, and
Poland abstained. In giving their reasons for their votes the repre-
sentatives of these two States did not refer ta their opposition to
' Article X (Document E/AC.zj/SK.z6, pp. 4-8).
ArticleX of the Ad Hoc Cornmittee's draft s'as considered at the
103rd to the 105th meetings of the Sixth Committee on 12 and
13 November, 1948 At the 103rd meeting Poland and Czecbo-
slovakia sooke aeainst retainine the article in the Convention. At the
104th meéting tg; representatzre of the~hili~pines spokein favour
of the .4dHoc Committee's draft because it recognized the right of
contracting parties to bnng a dispute as to thëinterpretatron or

application of the Convention before the International Court of
Justice, but opposed any mention of the respoiisibility of States for
genocide. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics proposed the
deletion of the article (Document A/C,6/21j/Rev. 1).The article
was adopted, with vanous amendments, by a vote of 18 to2, with
15 abstentions, at the 105th meeting. At the 131st meeting of the
Committee on IDecember, 1948,a proposa1was made to reconsider
the article, which had become Article IX of the Sixth Committee's
draft, but the proposa1was rejected.g2 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
The draft convention was then considered by the General Assem-
bly at its 178th and 179th meetings on g December, 1948. The
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics proposed vanous amendments
to the text approved by the Sixth Committee (Document A/766),
not, however, including any relating to Article IX.
Immediately before the General Assembly's vote on the whole

text of the Convention the representative of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics declared that :
"With regard to Article IX where reference was made to the
International Court of Justice and the international tribunal the
U.S.S.R. delegation had to maintain its position and insist that, in
each case, thesuhmissionof any dispute to the International Court
of Justice could only be made with the consent of al1the parties
directly concerned in thematter."

No other delegation commented on this declaration. The Philip-
pines made no declaration on the question.
Article XII. Article XII, conceming application to non-self-
goveming territories, originated with a draft additional article

proposed by the United Kingdom in the Sixth Committee (Docu-
ment A/C.6/~36), which, with slight modifications by the drafting
committee, was identical with the present test. The Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic submitted an amendment (Document
A/C.6/264) to the United Kingdom proposal, providing that the
Convention should apply automatically to al1dependent territories.
At the Committee's 107th meeting on 15 November, 1948. the
Ukrainian amendment, though supported by the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics and Czechoslovakia, was rejected by 19 votes to
IO,with 14 abstentions, andthe new article proposed by the United
Kingdom was adopted by a vote of 18 to 9, with 14 abstentions.
During the discussion of the Convention by the General Assembly
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics proposed an amendment to
Article XI (Document A/766) which was very similar tothe Ukrain-
ian amendment which had been defeated in the Sisth Committee.

This amendment was supported by the representatives of the
Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet
Socialist Republic, Poland and Czechoslovakia, but was rejected by
the General Assembly by a vote of 23 to 19, with 14 abstentions, at
its179th plenary meeting on g December, 1948. The representative
of the Soviet Union thereupon observed that the rejection of his
amendment diminished the value of thetext.

D. General Discussion of "Reservations" in the Sixth Committee

After the Sixth Committee had approved the full text of the
Convention at its 13znd meeting on I -December, 1948, the United
Kingdom representative stated that "he had abstained from voting
in order to indicate the United Kingdom Government's reservations WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS 93
;itthat tinic in rcgird tu tlie draft convcntion", ani.1indicat,d tliat

liis Govcriim~iit~ ~eht not findit nussihlt to sicri :ind ratif!..
~t the 133rd mehg on z DeGmber, 1~~8,"therepres&tative of
the United States of America observed that if the expression
"responsibility of a State" in Article IX of the Convention signified
that a State could be sned for damages in respect of injury inflicted
by iton itsown subjects, then there would be serious objections, and
his Government would have reservations to make about the inter-
pretation of the phrase. With regard to Article VII, he declared that
until the United States Congress had passed the legislative measures
necessary to bring the Convention into force, his Government could

not hand over any person accused of a crime by virtue of which he
was not already liable to extradition under the terms of the existing
laws, andthat the United States Constitutionprevented his Govern-
ment from extraditing any person accused of a crime committed
hefore the promulgation of the law defining that new crime.
The representative of the Dominican Republic explained that the
.fact he had voted in favour of the draftconventioninno wayimplied
that his delegation repudiated the reservations it had expressed
during the discussion of the draft, particularly with regard to the

articles against which it had voted.
The representative of India said that his Government reserved its
position with regard to Articles VI and IX, which it might not be
able to accept in toto, or without some reservations.
The Belgian representative reserved the position of his Govern-
ment regarding the provision relating to extradition, on the ground
that until legislative changes had heen made the Belgian Govern-
ment would be able to implement the Convention only to the extent
allowed by existing Belgian legislation and the treaties to which
Belgium was a party.

The representative of China reserved his Government's right to
ratify or not to ratify the Convention or to ratify it with certain
reservations after a thorough examination of its text.
The Peruvian representative mentioned his delegation'sdissatis-
faction with Articles III, VI and IX, and stated that the delegation
wished in due course to make some reservations concerning the
draft convention.
The Syrian representative reserved the position of his Govern-
ment regarding the signature and ratification of the Convention.
The Rapporteur then said that the representative of the Domin-

ican Republic had asked that his statement, together with the
reservations contained therein, be included in the Rapporteur's
report, and noted that the Committee's approval was required on
that point. The following discussion then ensued (Officia1Records
of the General Assembly, Third Session, Part 1, Sixth Committee,
pp. 710-711) :94 WRITTEx STATEMENT OF THE USITED NATIONS
"\lr. de \l;irctienn 1)iijarric (L)oniinicnn Kepuhlic, ajireed rti;it
uiilv his rcscr\,ntion should hc mcntioned in th? Ka..urteur's rc.ort.
I>rc".idedn fiiltcxt of th? statemeiit !vas reyroduccil iii ttic records
ol thc.meeting. In .iiic.rst.tlic rciervatioii; wiiiildhc nind~.forrn~llv
at the time t6e Convention was signed.
Mr. Spiropoulos (Greece), Rapporteur, said he would do as
requested by the representative of the Dominican Repuhlic. He
~oioted out that no other member had asked for the statement to
Be mentioned in the Rapporteur's report. The Committee would
have to take a separate decision each time sucharequest wasmade.
Mr. Gross (United States of America) felt it would be awkward
if the reoort mentioned onlv one statement. It would be oreferable
for the ;epresentative of the Dominican Republic to withdraw his
request. Othenvise, the United States dele~ation would also ask for
itGreservations to be included in the repos.

Mr. Kaeckenbeeck (Belgium) said the Committee's report should
be as clear and concise as possible. If it were to contain ali the
iiiil~rc'siüii\i.oiildhc diiastroiis. 'TIicpoîitofi\.:,riousdclegntioris
\i.<,iil>e(~utliriedin the records of the nicéting.Ir \vould hc siirticieiit
for the Rao~orteur's reoort to mention thatsome deleeations had
iii.r~lrr~î?r\..,tioris and euplniiatory stateinerits rcgarding tlieir \wte
aiid thal bot11cxplanntions and resrrvations could ùr foiiiid in thc
recordç of the meeting.
Mr. Maurtua (Peru) emphasized that his reservation Iiad been of
a ~reliminarv character. It was for the various eovernments to
make reservations at the time of the sigoiog of the Convention. The
Rapporteur should therefore merelv mention the reservations made
by certain delegations

Mr. So. .ooulos 1Greece)...aDDo..eur. aeree- with the Beleian -
tlic drafr coorcnrion would bc iiicludrd in tlic rccord ofrliriiiecting.
hiit the\. hnd iio lccnl siriiirik..iiicc.Ilc \voiidrrcd ulietlitr ccrtaiii

.s..nature of the Convention. However. if a eovernmunt made
rcscr\.atioiis rc:ardiiis a ci~ii\ciitioii, it csiild iiot Lccon~i(lase~1
n pari). to tliat ~:r,ii\ciitioIIII~PSStltr otlicr c~iitracti-l- 11:irtirs
accepted those reservations, expressly or tacitly.
Mr. .Kaeckenbeeck (Belgium) thought that the point under
discussion raised an interesting, though purely theoretical, legal
problem. The Committee did not have to take a decision at that
stage on whether reservations would prevent a State £rombecoming
a party ta a convention. In explaining their votes, some delegations
had simply wished to reserve their government's freedom of action
regarding the ratification of the Convention.
The'Chairman stated that the representatives concerned, and the
Rapporteur, werein agreement that the latter should briefly indicate
in the Committee's report that some delegations had reserved their
government's position in respect of the draft convention on genocide. WRITTES STATEMEST OF THE UXITED NATIOSS
95
'1'11p~urportof rliusctatcm~iiti ivould bc r~corded IIIth,-qiimmsry
record of the met:tiiiIItle usu;ll!vn\..1II?ili.iirniaii ith;ittliere
was no necessity touopen a discussion on the legal implications of
the reservations which had been made."

III. STATUS OF SIGXATURES, RATIFICATIOXS, .ASD ACCESSIONS
Article XI of the Genocide Convention provides :

"The present Convention shall be open until 31 December, 1949.
for signature on behalf of any Memberof the United Nations andof
any non-member State to which an invitation to sign bas been
addressed by the General Assembly.
The present Convention shaii be ratihed, and the instruments of
ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the
United Nations.
After I January, 1950, the present Convention may be acceded
to on behalf of any Memberof the United Nations and of any non-
member State which has received an invitation as aforesaid.
Instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-
General of the United Nations."

The Convention was approved by General Assembly Resolution
260 (III) of 9 December, 1948, and was opened for signature on
II December, 1948.
By Resolution 368 (IV) of 3 December, 1949, the General Assem-
bly requested the Secretary-General to dispatch invitations to
become parties to the Convention to each non-member State which
was or thereafter became an active Member of one or more of the

specialized agencies of the United Nations, or which was or there-
after became a party to the Statute of the International Court of
Justice.
Accordingly the Secretary-General dispatched invitations on the
following dates to the following twenty States, then not members of
the United Nations : on 6 December, 1949, Albania, Austria,
Bulgaria, Ceylon, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Monaco,
Portugal, Romania, Switzerland and Jordan ; on 27 March, 1950,

Indonesia ; on 10 April, 1950. Liechtenstein ; on 31 May, 1950.
Cambodia, Laos and Viet Nam ;on zo December, 1950, the Federal
Republic of Germany.
The Convention was signed by the following forty-three States :

Australia Chile
Belgium China
Bolivia Colombia
Brazil Cuba
Burma . Czechoslovakia (subject to

Byelorussian Soviet Socialist reservations)
Republic (subject to reserv- Denmark
ations) Dominican Republic
Canada Ecuador WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
96
E~YP~ New Zealand
El Salvador Norway
Ethiopia Pakistan
France Panama

Greece Paraguay
Guatemala Peru
Haiti Philippine Republic
Honduras Sweden
Iceland Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repub-
India lic (subject to reservations)
Iran Union of Soviet Socialist Repub-
Israel lics (subject to reservations)
Lebanon United States of America
Liberia Uruguay
Mexico Yugoslavia.

Up to 15 January, 1951, instruments of ratification or accession
had been received by the Secretary-General from the foilowing
States, on the dates indicated :

Instruments of Ratification
Australia 8 Ju~Y ,949
Czechoslovakia (subject to reservations) 21 December, 1950

Ecuador 21 December, 1949
El Salvador 28 September, 1950
Ethiopia 1 Jul~, 1949
France 14 October, 1950
Guatemala 13 January, 1950
Haiti 14 October, 1950
Iceland 29 August, 1949
Israel 9 March, 1950
Liberia 9 June, 1950
Nonvay 22 Ju~Y 1949
Panama II January, 1950

Philippine Republic (subject to reservations) 7 July, 1950
Yugoslavia 29 August, 1950

Instruments O/ Accession

Bulgaria (subject to reservations) 21 JulY, 1950
Cambodia 14 October, 1950
Ceylon 12 October, 1950
Costa Rica 14 October, 1950
Hashemite Jordan 3 April, 1950
Korea 14 October, 1950
Laos 8 December, 1950
Monaco 30 March, 1950
Poland (subject to reservations) 14 November, 1950 WRITTEN STATEhlENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS 97 .

Romania (subject to reservations) z November, 1950
Saudi Arabia 13 July. 1950
Turkey 31 J~Y. 1950
Viet Nam II August, 1950

Article XIII of the Convention provides :

"On the day when the first twenty instruments of ratification or
accession have been deposited, the Secretary-General shd draw
up a procès-uerbaalnd transmit a copy of it to each Member of the
United Nations and to each of the non-member States contemplated
in Article XI.
The present Convention shail come into force on the ninetieth day
following the date of deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratifica-
tion or accession.
become effective on the ninetieth day following the de~osit of the
instrument of ratification or accession."

On 14 October, 1950, the condition for the coming into force of the
Convention had been fulfilled, and a firocès-verbalto that effect
(Annexed Document z) was drawn up by the Secretary-General in

accordance with Article XIII of the Convention. This firocès-verbal
was circulated to the governments concerned on 19 October, 1950
(Annexed Document 1).
The Convention consequently entered into force on 12 Janu-
ary, 1951.

IV. RESERVATIONS TO THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION ,ND PROCEDURE
OF THE SECRETARY-GENERA LELATIKG THERETO

A. Reservations made on Signature

Article XVII of the Genocide Convention provides as follows :
"The Secretary-General of the United Nations shd notify al1
Members of the United Nations and the non-member States
contemplated in Article XI of the following :
(a) Signatures, ratifications and accessions received in accordance
with Article XI ;...."

On 16 December, 1949, thc Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
the Byelornssian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet
Socialist Republic, and on 26 December, 1949, Czechoslovakia,

signed the Convention with identical reservations regarding Art-
icles 1X and XII. These reservations were as follows:
"As regards Article IS : The Soviet Union [the Byelorussian
S.S.K., the Ukrainian S.S.R., Czechoslovakia] does not consideras
binding upon itself the provisions of Article IX which provides that
disputes between the Contracting Parties with regard to the inter-
pretation, application and implementation of the present Convention
shd be referred for examination to the International Court at the WRITl'EX STATENENT OF THE USITED SATIOSS
g8
request of any party to the dispute, and declaresthat, as regards the
International Court'sjurisdictionin respect of disputes concerning
the interpretation, applicationand implementation of the Conven-
tion, the Soviet Union [the Byelorussian S.S.R., the Ukrainiaii
S.S.K.,Czechoslovakia]ivill,as hitherto, maintain the position that
ineacli particular case the agreement of al1parties to the dispute is
essential for the submission ofariy particular dispute to the Inter-
national Court for decision.
As r~gardsArticle .YI1 :The Union of Soviet Socialist Kepublics
[the Byelorussian S.S.R., the Ukrainian S.S.R., Czechoslovakia]
declares that it is not in agreement with ArticleXII of the Conven-
tion and considers thatal1the provisions ofthe Convention should
extend to non-self-governingterritories, including trust territones."

These reservations were stated in special firoiès-uerbauxdrawn
up at the,time of each signature. The texts of these firocès-verba?~x
are reproduced as Annexed Documents 7,15,21 and 27.
On 29 and 30 December, 1949, the Secretary-General, in accord-
ance with Article XVII of the Convention, sent notifications of thcse
signatures mith reservations, attaching certified copies of the firocès-
verbaux, to each hfember State of the United Nations and to each
of the non-member States to which an invitation to become parties

to the Convention had been addressed.
The notifications sent to States which had not yet ratified or
acceded are reproduced as Annexed Documents 6, 14, 20 and 26.
The notifications sent to States which had then ratified the
Convention (Australia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Iceland and Norway)
stated that the Secretary-General wished to be informed at the
earliest possible opportunity of the attitude of those Governments
with regard'to the reservations, and that it would be his under-
standing that al1States which had ratified or acceded to the Conven-
tion had accepted these reçervations unless they had notified him of
objections thereto prior to theday on which the first twenty instru-
ments of ratification or accession, necessary to bring the Convention
into force, had been deposited. The notifications sent to States
which had then ratified are reproduced as Annexed Documents 12,
18, 24 and 30.

The Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Repuhlics,
Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic and Czechoslovakia were informed that these notifications
had been made by the Secretaiy-General by letters of 13 January,
1950 (Annexed Documents 13, 19, 25 and 31).
The invitations to become parties to the Convention which were
addressed to non-member States after the dates of the signatures
with reservations contained notifications of those reservations, and
copies of the firocès-verbauxof signature were attached. These invit-
ations are reproduced as Annexed Documents 61, 62, 63 and 64.
Thereafter, aseach new State ratified or acceded to the Conven-
tion without having made an objection to the reservations, the WRITTEN STATE.\IENT OF THE UNITED II.ATIOSS
f99
Secretary-General informed that State that, as the deposit of the
instrument of ratification or accession had been made without any
objection, it was his understanding that that govemment accepted
the reservations. These communications are reproduced as Annesed
Documents 105, 78, 106. 107, 108, log, 1x0, III, 112, 113, 114,

11~,116,117,118.11g, 120 and 121.

B. Reseruatiortsmade in Instrnments of Ratification and Accession

1. Reseruationsof the Philifi9ines. On 6 July, 1950, the Secretary-
General received from thc Philippines an instrument of ratification
containing reservations to Articles IV, VI, VI1 and 1X of the
Convention. These reservations were as follows :

"1. With reference to Article IV of the Convention, the Philippine
Government cannot sanction any Situation which would subject its
Head of State, who is not a ruler, to conditions less favourable than
those accorded other Heads of State, whether constitutionally
responsible rulen or not. The Philippine Government does not
consider said article, therefore, as overriding the existing immunities
from judicial processes guaranteed certain public officials by the
Constitution of the Philippines.

2. With reference to Article VI1of the Convention, the Philippine
Government does not undertake to give effect to said article untif
the Congress of the Philippines has enacted the necessary legislation
defining and punishing the crime of genocide, which legislation,
under the Constitution of the Philippines, cannot have any retro-
active effect.
3. With reference to Articles VI and IS of the Convention, the
Philippine Government takes the position that nothing contained
in said articles shali be construed as depriving Philippine courts
of jurisdiction over al1casesofgenocide committed within Philippine
temtory Save only in those cases where the Philippine Government
consents to have the decision of the Philippine courts reviewed by
either of the international tribunals referred to in said articles. With
further rcfcrence to Article IX of the Convention, the Philippine
Government does not coiisider said article to extend the concept of

On 31July, 1950, the Secretary-General sent notifications of thcse
reservations, attaching a certified copy of the instrument of ratifica-
tion. to each of the States described in Article XVII of the Conven-
tion.
The notification sent to States which had not yet ratified or
acceded is reproduced as Annexed Document 32.
The notifications sent to States which had then ratified or acceded

to the Convention stated that the Secretary-General wished to be
informed at the earliest possible opportunity of theattitude of those
Govemments with regard to reservations, and that it would be his100 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS

understanding that those States accepted the reservations unless
they had notified him of objections thereto prior to the day on
which the first twenty instruments of ratification or accession had
been deposited. The text of this notification is reproduced as
Annexed Document 36.

By a letter to the Philippines of 31 July, 1950, the Secretary-
General acknowledged the receipt of the instrument of ratification,
but stated that it might be received in deposit only subject to no
objection to the reservations being taken by any State which had
already ratified or acceded to the Convention or by any State which
might ratify or accede prior to the day on which the first twenty
instruments of ratification or accession should have been deposited ;
he also informed the Philippines that the above notifications had
been made (Annexed Document 38).

The invitation to the Federal Republic of Germany to become a
party to the Convention, the only such invitation to a non-member
State issued after the date of receipt of the instrument of ratifica-
tion of the Philippines, contained a notification of the reservations
of the Philippines (Annexed Document 64).
Thereafter, as each new State ratified or acceded to the Conven-
tion without having made an objection to the reservations, the
Secretary-General informed that State that as the deposit of the
instrument of ratification had been made without any objection, it

was his understanding that that govemment accepted the reserv-
ations. These letters are reproduced as Annexed Documents 112,
113,114,115; 116,'117,118,119,120 and 121.
2. Reservations of Bulgaria. On 14 July, 1950, the Secretary-

General received an instrument of accession with reservations to
Articles IX and XII from Bulgaria, the reservations being identical
with those made on signature by the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic and Czechoslovakia. These reservations
were as follows :

"1. As regards ArticleIX : The People's Republic of Bulgaria
doesnot consider as binding upon itselfthe provisions ofArticle IX
which provides that disputes between the Contracting Parties with
regard to the interpretation, application and implementation of
the present Convention shall be referred for examination to the
International Court at the request of any party to the dispute,
and declares that, as regards the International Court's jurisdiction
in respect of disputes conceming the interpretation, application and
implementation ofthe Convention,the People'sRepublic ofBulgana
will, as hitherto,aintain the position that in each particular case
the agreement of all parties to the dispute is essential for the
submission of any particular dispute to the International Court for
decision.
2. As regards Article XII : The People's Republicof Bulgaria
declaresthat it isnot in agree.mentwith ArticleXII ofthe Convention WRITïEN STATEIIIENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS 101

and considers that al1 the provisions of the Convention should
extend to non-self-governing temtories, including trust temtories."

Precisely the same procedure was followed as in the case of the
reservations of the Philippines. The notification of the receipt of
this instrument sent on 3 August, 1950, to States which had not
yet ratified or acceded is reproduced as Annexed Document 39,
and that sent on the same date to States which had already ratified
or acceded is Annexed Document 43.
By a letter to Bnlgaria of 3 August, 1950, the Secretary-General
acknowledged the receipt of the instrument of accession, but stated
that it might be received in deposit only subject to no objection to
the reservations being taken by any State which had already

ratified or acceded to the Convention or by any State which might
ratify or accede prior to the day on which the first twenty instru-
ments of ratification or accession should have been deposited ;
he also informed Bnlgaria that the above notifications had been
made (Annexed Document 45).
The invitation to become a Party, addressed to the Federal
Republic of Germany, which contained a notification of the reser-
vations is Annexed Document 64.
The commnnications thereafter addressed to States subsequently
ratifying or acceding without objection to the reservations are
given as Annexed Documents 112, 113, 114. 115, 116, 117, 118,

119, 120 and 121.
3. Reservations of Romania. On z November, 1950, the Secretary-
General received an instrument of accession from Romania contain-
ing reservations to Articles IX and XII which were identical with

those made on signature by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet
Socialist Republic and Czechoslovakia, and in the instrument of
accession of Bulgaria. The reservations of Romania were as follows :
"As regards ArticleIX : The People's Republic of Romania does
not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article IX, which
provides that disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to
the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Conventionhd
be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request
of any of the parties to the dispute, andeclares that as regards the
jurisdiction of the Court in disputes relating to the interpretation,
application or fulfilment of the Convention, the People's Republic
of Romania will adhere to the view which it has held up to the
present, that in each particular case the agreement ofl1the parties
to a dispute is required before it can be referred to the Iuter-
national Court of Justice for settlement.
As regards Article XII : The People's Republic of Romania
declares that it is not in agreement with Article XII of the
Convention, and considers that al1 the provisions of the Convention
should apply to the non-self-governing territories, including the
' trust territories."102 WRITTES STATEMENT 01: THE USlTED NATIOSS

The notification sent on 21 Xovember. 1950, to States which had
not yet ratified or acceded is reproduced in Annexed Document 46.
The' notification sent on the same date to States which had
already ratified or acceded differed from that used in the cases of
the reservations of the Philippiiies and Bulgaria, as at the time of
the receipt of Romania's instrument of accession a sufficient number
of States had ratified or acceded to bring the Convention into force.
The Secretary-General asked to be informed of the attitude of those
Governments with regard to the 'reservations, and invited their
attention to the second and third paragraphs of Article XII1 of the
Convention, which provide that the Convention would come into
force on the ninetieth day following the date of deposit of the

twentieth instrument of ratification or accession and that any
ratification or accession effected subsequent to the latterdate should
become effective on the ninetieth day following the deposit of the
instrument. This notification is reproduced in Annexed Docu-
ment 50. Information copies of these notifications were addressed
to Romania.
The invitation to the Federal Repriblic of Germany, containing
a notification of the reservations, is Annexed Document 64. The
communication addressed to Laos, which acceded.to the Conven-
tion without objection to the reservations of Romania, is Annexed
Document 121.

4. Keservations of Poland. On 14 iVovember, 1950, the Secretary-
General received an instrument of accession from Poland con-
taining reservations similar to those of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Repuhlics, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrain-
ian Soviet Socialist Kepublic, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and
Romania. The reservations of Poland were as follows :

"As regards Article IX : Poland does not regard itselas bound
hy the provisionsof this article since the agreemendithe parties
to a dispute is a necessarycondition in each specificcaseforis-
sion to the International Court of Justice.
As regards ArticleXII :Poland does not accept the provisions
of this article, considering that the Convention should apply to
non-self-govemingterritories, including trust temtories."
The same procedure was followed as in the case of the reser-
vations of Romania.
The notification sent on 29 November, 1950, to States which

had not yet ratified or acceded is reproduced in Annexed Docu-
ment 52. The notificatioii sent on 18 December, 1950, to States
which had already ratified or acceded is reproduced in Annexed
Document 56. By a letter of 7 Decemher, 1950, the Secretary-
General informed Poland that these notificatioiis had been made
(Annexed Document 57 a).
The invitation to the Federal Republic of Germany, containing
a notification of the reservations, is Annexed Document 64. . WRITTEN STrlTEhIENT OF THE UNITED XATIONS 103

5. Reservations O/ Czechoslovakia. On 21 Decemher, 1950, the
Secretary-General received an instrument of ratification from
Czechoslovakia maintaining the reservations which had been made
hy Czechoslovakia on signature.
On 12 January, 1951, the Secretary-General notified al1 States

descnbed in Article XVII of the Convention of the receipt of the
instrument of ratification with reservations. He further notified
them that replies from the Governments of Guatemala, Ecuador,
Australia, El Salvador and Viet Nam, copies of which had heen
circulated, had expressed disagreement with, or objection ta, these
reservations, and that pursnant to paragraph three of the General
Assembly's Resolutio~i on Reservations to Multilateral Conven-
tions, notification was made of the receipt of the instrument

without prejudice to its legal effect, pending the decision of the
General Assemhly at its sixth session. This notification is repro-
duced as Annexed Document 58. The Secretary-General also
informed Czechoslovakia to the same effect (AnnexedDocument 60).

1'.POSITIONS TAKEN BY STATES IN CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING
RESERVATIONS TO THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION

A. Ecuador

Ecuador ratified the Convention on 21 Decemher, 1949. On
30 December, 1949, the Secretary-General inquired as to Ecuador's
attitude concerning the reservations made on signature by the
Union of Soviet Socialist Repnblics, the Byelorussian Soviet
Socialist Repuhlic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repuhlic and
Czechoslovakia (Annexed Documents 12, 18,24 and 30).
In its reply of10 February, 1950, the Governme~itof Ecuador
stated that, in accordance,with the position it had previously

maintained regarding reservations, it had no objection to make
regarding the submission of such reservations, but expressed its
disagreement with their content (Annexed Document 66).
The Secretary-General replied on 21 March, 1950, remarking
that, as the statement did not seem to indicate clearly the inten-
tion of the Government of Ecuador, he would appreciate heing
informed whether it might be taken as accepting the aforemen-
tioned reservations (Annexed Document 67).

The Government of Ecuador replied on 31 March, 1950, stating
that it was not in agreement with the reservations and that there-
fore they did not apply to Ecuador, which had accepted without
any modification the complete text of the Convention (Annexed
Document 68). The Secretary-General circulated the two Ecuador-
ian notes and his own note of 21 March, 1950, to the governments
concerned on 5 Rlay, 1950 (Annexed Document 65).
The Secretary-General by a note of 3 August, 1950, inquired as

to Ecuador's attitude concerning the reservations contained in the
instrument of ratification of Bulgaria (Annexed Document 43).1O4 WRITTEN STATEXENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
The Government of Ecuador replied on 16 August, 1950, that
it was not in agreement with the reservations and that therefore

they did not apply to Ecuador, which had accepted without any
modification the complete text of the Convention (Annexed
Document 73).

B. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

On 13 January, 1950, the Secretary-General informed the
Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist liepublics that he
had sent notifications of the reservations made on signature by that
Government to al1 States contemplated in Article XI of the Con-
vention, and had further inquired as to the attitude of those States
which had ratified the Convention toward the reservations (Annexed
Document 13).
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics replied on 2March, 1950.
that the invitation to States which had ratified to express their

attitude on the reservationswent bevond the bounds of the functions
assigned tothe Secretary-General b; Article XVII of the Convention
(Annexed Document 74).
The Secretary-General replied on 23 March, rgjo, drawing atten-
tion to the provisions of Article XII1 of the Convention conceming
the drawing up by the Secretary-General of a procès-verbalof the
deposit of twenty instruments of ratification or accession, and
stating that according to accepted principles of international law a
reservation to a treaty made by a State might he valid only if all
the other parties consented to it (Annexed Document 75).
Further, the Secretary-General stated in a letter to Guatemala of

14 July, 1950,that if Guatemala objected to the reservations of the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the legal consequences would
be that the Secretary-General would not be in a position to accept
for deposit an instrument of ratification by the Ilnion of Soviet
Socialist Republics suhject to those reservations (Annexed Docu-
ment 80). This letter was circulated on2 August, 1950, to al1States
concerned, including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
(Annexed Document 77).
The Government of the latter replied on IOOctober, 1950, again
asserting that the Secretary-General was exceeding the powers
vested in him, which were defined exclusively by the Convention ;

further, the allegation by the Secretary-General that a reservation
to a treaty made by a State might be valid only if al1 the other
parties to the treaty consented to it was incompatible with the
principle of the sovereignty of States, and was therefore contrary
to the fundamental principles of international law (Annexed
Document 76). WRITTEN STATELIEXT OF THE USITED SATIOSS 105

C. Gziatemala
Guatemala ratified the Convention on 13 January, 1950. hccord-

ingly on 19 January, 1950, the Secretary-General informed the
Government of Guatemala that as its instrument of ratification
had been deposited without any objection concerning the reser-
vations made on signature by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
the Byelorussian. Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet
Socialist Republic and. Czechoslovakia, it was his understanding
that it accepted those reservations (Annexed Document 75).
The Guatemalan Government replied on 16June, 1950.thatit was
not in agreement with the reservations of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and
Czechoslovakia and that consequently it should not be inferred that

the Guatcmalan Government accepted them merely because it did
not make any reference to them in dcpositing its instrument of
ratification, since they had no relation to the full acceptance of the
Convention by Guatemala (Annexed Document 79).
The Secretary-General answered this communication on 14 July,
1950. requesting to be informed whether Guatemala, having had
due notice of the reservations, specifically objected to them, and
stating that, should Guatemala object, the legal consequences
would be that the Secretary-General would not be in a position to
accept for deposit instruments of ratification by the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and

Czechoslovakia subject to the aforesaid reservations. The Secretary-
Gencral also inquired as to the position of Guatemala regarding the
reservations of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, which
had not been mentioued in the Guatemalan note of 16 Junc, 1950
(Annexcd Document 80). The three communications were circulated
bythe Secretary-General on z August, 1950(AnnexedDocument 77).
The Government of Guatemala replied to the Secretary-General's
inquiry on 31 July, 1950, stating that it had always maintained the
view that reservations made upon signing or ratifyingintemational
conventions were acts inherent in the sovereignty of States and
were not open to discussion, acceptanceor rejection by other States,

and that in its view in collective convcntions reservations made by
a State affect only the application of the clause concemed, in the
relations of other States with the State rnaking the reservation
(AnnexedDocument 86). This reply was circulated bythe Secretary-
General on 7 Septcmber, 1950 (Annexed Document 85).
On 3 August, 1950, the Secretary-Gcncral inquired as to Guate-
mala's attitude concerning the reservations contained in the
instrument of accession of Bulgaria (tlnncxed Document 43).
The Guatemalan Govemment replied on 26 September, 1950.
that it \vas unable to accept the basis of the reservations made at
accession by Biilgaria, and that it confirmed its opinion that reser-
vations made upon signature or ratification of international agree-106 IVRITTES STATEJIEXT OF THE USITED NATIOSS
inents are a matter inherent in the sovereignty of States,and caniiot
be subject to discussion, acceptance or rejection by other States ;
consequently reservations in respect of collective agreements refer

only to the application of the relevant clause in the relations between
other States and the State making the reservatioii (Annexed Docu-
ment go). This communication was circulated by the Secretary-
Gciieral on 16 October, 1950 (Annexed Document 89).

D. The Uqzited Kingdonz

The United Kingdom has not signed, ratified or acceded to the
Genocide Convention.
In reply to the Secretary-General's notifications of 29 and 30
December, 1949, of the reservations made on signature by the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Re-
public, the Ukrainian Soviet Sociaiist Republic and Czechoslovakia
(Aniiexed Documents 6,14, zo and 26), the United Kingdom stated

iii a letter of 31 July, 1950, that it was uiiable to accept the reser-
vations because in its view their effect would be to alter the
Convention in important respects (Annexed Document 93). The
United Kingdom note \vas accompanied by a memorandum (United
Nations Document A/1372, Aniiex II : Folder 4, pp. 11-16) which
the Secretary-Generai \vas requested to circulate to al1Membersof
the United Nations. The general conclusion reached by this memo-
raiidum was :
"The most generally accepted opinionclearlyis that a State whicli
wishesto niake n reservation to a multilateral convention may doso
only if, at the least,l1other States which are signatories to the
convention consent : and, in the case of conventions which are still
open for signature,it is arguable that the consent of al1those who
have a right to sign must be obtained. Itis preferable that consent
should be given explicitly,but in somecasesit can be assumed from
silence.If. however. one of the other States ~ossessii-r!a r-pht to
ohject explicitly rrfiiscsto ncce;rescr\.:ition,'tliereservntiuiimust
eitht:he nti:iiidont,drlitState m:ikin-[liercservnrioiiriiiist reiiiain
outside the convention altogether."

In reply to the Secretary-Geiieral's notifications of 31 July and
3 August, 1950, respectively, of the reservations contained in the
instrument of ratification of the Philippines and the iiistrumeiit of
accession of Bulgaria (Annexed Documents 32 and 39). the United
Kirigdom Government stated in a letter of 30 September, 1950,
that it \vas unable to accept the reservations of Bulgaria and the
first two of the three reservations of the Philippines for the same
reasons as were expressed in the United Kingdom letter of 31 July,
1950 (Annexed Document 94).
In reply to the Secretary-General's notifications of 21 November
and 29 November, respectively, of the reservations made in the
instruments of accession of Romania and Poland (Annexed Docu- WRITTEN STATE~IENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS 107

ments 46 and 52)) the United Kingdom stated on 6 December,
1950, that it could not accept any of the reservations for the same
reason as those set out in the United Kingdom letter of 31 July,
1950 (Annexed Document 95).

E. Australia

Austraiia ratified the Genocide Convention on 8 July, 1949.
Accordingly the Secretary-General on 30 December. 1949. inquired
as to Australia's attitude concerning the reservations made on

signature by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Byelo-
russian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic and Czechoslovakia (Annexed Documents 12, 18, 24
and 30). and on 31 July and 3 August, 1950, respectively, con-
cerning the reservations in the instrument of ratification of the
Philippines and the instrument of accession of Bulgaria (Annexed
Documents 36 and 43).
Australia replied on 26 September, 1950, that it should not be
understood for the present that the Australian Government
accepted any of the above-mentioned reservations, that it resenred
its position as to the effect of the reservations, as well as the effect
of the signatures, ratifications or accessions to which they were

appended, and that the Secretary-General would be informed at a
later date of Australia's attitude thereto (Annexed Document 97).
This reply was circulated to the governments concerued by the
Secretary-General on 4 October, 1950 (Annexed Document 96).
On 15 November, 1950,Australia confirmed that it did not accept
any of the reservations of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet
Sociaiist Republic, Czechoslovakia, the Philippines or Bulgana, and
further stated that it would not regard as valid any ratification of
the Convention maintaining the reservations made on signature
(Annexed Document 101). The Secretary-General circnlated this
note on II December, 1950 (Annexed Document 100).

F. El Salvador

El Salvador ratified the Convention on 28 September, 1950. On
6 October, 1950, the Secretary-Gerieral informed the Governrnent
of El Salvador that as its instrument of ratification had been
deposited without any objection to the reservations of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist
Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia,
the Philippines and Bulgaria, it was his understanding that El
Salvador accepted those reservations (Annexed Document 1x4).
On 27 October, 1950,the Government of El Salvador replied that

it could not concur, since it was not its intention, in ratifying the
Convention without reservations, to refer in any way whatsoever to
8 108 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED SATIONS

the reservations made by the above-mentioned countries, and that
though El Salvador did not wish to make objection to those
reservations, it expressed its complete disagreement with them,in
particular those relating to Articles II and III of the Convention
(Annexed Document 123). The Secretary-General circulated this
reply on 25 November, 1950 (Annexed Document 122).

G. Viet Nam

Viet Nam acceded to the Convention on II August, 1950. On
30 August, 1950, the Secretary-General informed the Government
of Viet Nam that as its instrument of accession had been deposited
without any objection to the reservations of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, the Philip-
pines and Bulgaria, it mashis understanding that Viet Nam accepted
ihese rcier\.r<ïioiis (Ariii,:sed L)ocunitn1;~).

The Go\,t.riini<:nrof Viet Sain rti~liedo? Soveni1)t:r. roio.rhlit
in acceding to the Convention it had been ciet Nam's inténtion to
accept only the text of that Convention, and not the reservations
suhmitted by any State ; the Government did not consider that it
should at that time give its views on the substance of the reser-
vations, since the question of principle involvecl, namely, to what
extent reservations may be made to multilateral conventions, and
the effect thereof, would have to be settled on a more general level
(Annexed Document 127). This reply was circulated by the Secre-
tary-General on 6 December, 1950 (Annexed Document 126).
In reply to the Secretary-General's letter of21 November, 1950,

inquiring as to Viet Nam's attitude toward the reservations
contained in the instrument of accession of Romania (Annexed
Document so), the Government of Viet Nam replied on 22 Decem-
ber, 1950. that it maintained its point of view, according to which
Viet Nam, in acceding to the Convention, intended to accept solely
the text 'ofthe Convention asit had been approved by the General
Assembly, to the exclusion of reservations offered by States on
signature or on the deposit of their instruments of ratification or
accession (Annexed Document 130).
The Secretary-General replied on 12 January, 1951, stating that

in making the notification the Secretary-General had been following
his previous practice, in conformity with the provisions of the
Resolution concerning reservations to multilateral conventions,
adopted by the General Assembly on 16 November, 1950; in
accordance with paragraph 3 of that Resolution, the method
followed by the Secretary-General was without prejudice to the
legal effect which the General Assembly at its sixth session might
recommend to be attributed to objections to reservations (Annexed
Document 131). WRITTEK STATEYENT OF THE UNITED XATIONS 109'

H. France

France ratified the Convention on 14 October, 1950.Accordingly
on 15 November. 1950, the Secretary-General informed the French
Government that as its instrument of ratification had heen deposited
without any objection to the reservations of the Union of Soviet
Sociaiist Republics, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, the Philip-
pines and Bulgaria, it was his understanding that France accepted
these reservations (Annexed Document 118).
The French Government replied on 6 December, 1950, that its
position was that reservations made by a State at the time of
signature or ratification of a convention or accession to it are not

valid against a contracting party nntil after the latter haformally
agreed thereto ; therefore the absence of objections by the French
Government to the reservations made by certain States could not
be considered as an acceptance of those reservations (Annexed
Document 132).
The Secretary-Generai replied on 12 January, 1951, calling the
attention of the French Government to the paragraph of the
General Assembly's Resolution of 16 November, 1950 (Document
A/I~I~) by which the Secretary-General was instructed to follow
his prior practice with respect to the receipt of reservations to
conventions and with respect to the notification and solicitation

of approvais thereof, without prejudice to any recommendation
by the Generai Assembly at its sixth session. The practice of the
Secretary-General was based on the principle that a State accepting
a treaty impliedly consented to every reservation thereto of wliich
tbat State then had notice, and it was in conformity with this
principle that the Secretary-General had sent to France his letter
of 15 November, 1950 (Annexed Document 133).

1. Cambodia

Cambodia acceded to the Convention on 14 October, 1950. By
a letter of 15 November, 1950, the Secretary-General informed the
Government of Carnhodia that as its instrument of accession had
been deposited without any objection to the reservations made on
signature by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Byelo-
russian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic and Czechoslovakia, and in the instrument of ratification
of the Philippines and the instrument of accession of Bulgaria, it
was his understanding that Cambodia accepted those reservations
(Annexed Document 116).
On 6 December, 1950, Cambodia replied that it had simply

acceded to the Convention, without taking any account of the
above-mentioned reservations (Annexed Document 134).II0 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS

On 12 January, 1951, the Secretary-General replied, calling to
Cambodia's attention the paragraph of the General Assembly's
Resolution of 16 November, 1950 (Document A/I~I~) by which
the Secretary-General was instructed to foiiow his prior practice

with respect to the receipt of reservations to conventions and with
respect to the notification and solicitation of approvals thereof,
without prejudice to any recommendation by the Generai Assembly
at its sixth session. The practice of the Secretary-General was based
on the principle that a State accepting a treaty impliedly consented
to every reservation thereto of which that State then had notice,
and it was in conformity with this pnnciple that the Secretary-
Generd had sent to Cambodia his letter of 15 November, 1950
(Annexed Document 135).

J. The Phili+pines

By a circular note of II December, 1950, the Secretary-General
informed the Philippines of Australia's objection to the reser-
vations contained in the instrument of ratification of the Philippines
(Annexed Document 100).
By a letter of 15 December, 1950, the Government of the Philip-

pines informed the Secretary-General that it did not recognize
the non-acceptance by the Australian Government of the reser-
vations as in any way affecting the validity of the ratificationby the
Philippines, and stated that it was prepared to bring the matter
as a contentious case before the International Court of Justice in
accordance with the procedure laid down in Article IX of theGeno-
cide Convention (Annexed Document 104).

For the Secretary-General :

(Signed) IVANS. KERNO,

AssistantSecretary-General
in charge of the Legal Department. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF TUE U.N.-ANNEXES III

ANNEXES

PART ONE.-NOTIFICATION BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
OF THE DEPOSIT OF

TWENTY INSTRUMENTS OF RATlFICATION OR ACCESSION

Annexed Document No. I

C.N.I~~.I~~O.TREATIES

CONVENTION OF 9 DECEMBER,1948, ON THE PREVENTION AND

PUNISHMBNT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE

Entry in10 Force*
19October, 1950.
Sir,

1 am directed by the Secretary-General to refer to Article XII1
of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of thecrime of
Genocide, which provides in its first and second paragraphs that :
"On the day when the first twenty instruments of ratification
or accession have heen deposited, the Secretary-General shaü
draw up a firocès-uerbaalnd transmit a copy of it to each Member
of the United Nations and to each of the non-member States
contemplated in Article XI.

The present Convention shall come into force on the ninetieth
day following the date of deposit of the twentieth instrument
of ratification or accession."
On 14 October, 1950. the following Stateç deposited with the
Secretary-General their instruments of ratification or accession to
the Convention :

Cambodia Accession
Costa Rica Accession
France Ratification
Haiti Ratification
Republic of Korea Accession
On that date the conditions specified in the first paragraph of

Article XIII Iiaving been fulfiiied, the Secretary-General drew up
the required procès-verbal, a copy of which is enclosed herewith.
In accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of
Article XIII, the Convention will then enter into force on-12 Janu-
=Y, 1951.

' Notificationsentin Englishor in French, tal1 Statesinvitrto sign or
accede tothe Convention.II2 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.N.-ANNEXES

Up to 14 October, 1950. the foilowing States have submitted to
the Secretary-General their instruments of ratification or accession
to the said Convention :

Ratifications Accessions

Australia 8 Juiy 1949 Bulgaria 21July 1950
Ecnador 21 Decemher 1949 (with reservations
El Salvador 28 Septemkr 1950 regarding Articles
Ethiopia 1JU~Y 1949 IX and XII)
France 14 October 1950 Cambodia 14 October 1950
Guatemala 13 January 1950 Ceylon 12 October 1950
Haiti 14 October 1950 Costa Rica 14 October 1950
Iceland 29 August 1949 Hashemite
Israel g March 1950 Kingdom
Liberia 9 .rune 1950 of the
Nonvay 22 July 1949 . Jordan 3 April 1950
Panama II January 1950 Korea 14 October 1950
Philippines 7 July 1950 Monaco 30 March 1950
(with reservations Saudi-Arabia 13 July 1950
regarding Articles Turkey 31 JU~Y 1950
IV, VI, VI1 and IX) Viet Nam II August 1950
Yugoslavia 29 Augnst 1950

1 have, etc.
(Signed) Dr. 1. KERNO,
Assistant Secretary-General,
Legal Department.
--

Annexed Document No. 2
PROCES-VERBA ESTABLISHING PROCÈS-VERBA LONSTATANT LE
THE DEPOSIT OF TWENTY INSTRU- DÉPÔT DE VINGT INSTRUMENTS
MENTS OF RATIFICATION OR DE RATIFICATION OU D'ADHÉSION
ACCESSION TO THE CONVENTION A LA CONVENTION POUR LA
ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISH- PRÉVENTION ET LA RÉPRESSION
MENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE DU CRIME DE GÉNOCIDE

CONSIDERINtG hat Article XIII, CONSIDÉRANT~lU 'rticle XIII
paragraphs one and two, of the de la Convention pour la préven-
Convention on the Prevention tion et la répression du crime
and Punishment of the Crime de génocide stipule, dans ses
of Genocide provides that : paragraphes un et deux, que :
"On the day when the first «Dès le jour où les vingt
twenty instruments of ratifi- premiers instruments de rati-
cation or accession have been fication on d'adhésion auront
deposited, the Secretary-Gen- étédéposés, leSecrétairegéné-
eral shail draw up a procès- ral en dressera procès-verbal.
verbaland transmit a copy of Il transmettra copie de, ce
it to each Member of the procès-verbal à tous les Etats
United Nations and to each Membres des Nations Unies et
of the non-member States con- aux non-membres visés par
templated in Article XI. l'article XI. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE u.N.-ANNEXES 113

The present Convention shall La présente Convention en-
come into force on the nine- trera en vigueur le quatre-
tieth day following the date vingt-dixième jour qui suivra
of deposit of the twentieth la date du dépôt du vingtième
instrument of ratification or instrument de ratification OU
accession." d'adhésion. »

CONSIDERING that the con- CONSIDÉRAN qTue la condition
dition specified in paragraph one prévueau paragraphe premier a,
ha, on this day, been fulfilled; ce jour, étéréalisée ;
THEREFORE, the Secretary- EN CONS~QUENC lE, ecrétaire
General hasdrawn up this procès- général adressé leprésentprocès-
verbal in the English and French verbal en langue anglaise et en

languages. langue française.
Done at Lake Success, New ~ork,'this 14th day ofOctober, 1950.

Fait à Lake Success, New-York, le 14 octobre 1950.
For the Secretary-General :

Pour le Secrétaire général :
(Signed) Dr. IVANS. KERNO,
Assistant Secretary-General,
Legal Department.

Secrétaire généraladjoint,
Département juridique.
--

Annexed Document No. 3

C.N.177.1qço.TREATIEç.-Corr igendum

Annexed Document No. 4
C.N.177.1gço

Entréeen vigueur
le 19 octobre 1950.

Je suis chargé par le Secrétaire généralde me référer à l'artic!e XII1
de la Convention pour la prévention et la répression du cnme de
génocide, qui stipule, dans ses paragraphes un et deux, que :
u Dès le jour où les vingt premiers instruments de ratification
ou d'adhésion auront étédéposés, leSecrétairegénéralen dressera
procès-verbal. Il transmettra .copie de ce procès-verbal à tous
les Rtats Membres des Nations Unies et aux non-membres visés
. Dar~l-~ ~ ~le XI.
--
1 Contained a rectificatioof an enor (English text). Sot reprodueed.
1 Notificationfaite, en françaou en anglais, à touslesCtats invitéà signer
la convention ou 5 y adherer."4 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.N.-ANNEXES

La présente Convention entrera en vigueur le quatre-vingt-
dixième jour qui suivra la date du dépôt du vingtième instrument
de ratification on d'adhésion. u
Le 14 octobre 1950, les États suivants ont déposéauprès du Secré-
taire général leur instrument de ratification ou d'adhésion à ladite
convention :
Cambodge adhésion
Costa-Rica adhésion
France ratification
Haiti ratification
République de Corée adhésion

A cette date, les conditions prévues au paragraphe premier de
l'article XIII ayant étéréalisées, leSecrétaire générala dressé le
procès-verbal nécessaire dont une copie est jointe à la présente.
Conformément aux dispositions du deuxième paragraphe de i'arti-
cle XIII, la convention entrera en vjgueur le 12 janvier 1951.
A la date du 14 octobre 1950, les Etats suivants ont déposéauprès
du Secrétaire général leurinstrument de ratification ou d'adhésion à
ladite convention :

Raiifiations Adhésions
Australie Arabie saondite 13 juillet 1950
Équateur 8 juillet 1949 Bulgarie 21 juillet 1950
Éthiopie 21 décembre 1949 (avec réserves
Ijniiiet 1949 relatives aux
France 14 octobre 1950 articles'IX et XII)
Haïtimala 13 janvier 1950 Cambodge 14 octobre 1950
Islande 14 octobre 1950 Ceylan 12 octobre 1950
29 août 1949 Corée 14 octobre 1950
Israël 9 mars 1950 Costa-Rica 14 octobre 1950
Norvege g juin 1950 Monaco 30 mars 1950
Panama 22 juillet 1949 Royaume
Philippines II janvier 1950 hachémite
(avec réserves relatives 1950 de Jordanie 3 avril 1950
aux articles IV, VI, Turquie 31 juillet 1950
VI1 et IX) Viet-Nam IIaoût 1950
Salvador 28 septembre 1950
Yougoslavie 29 août 1950

Je vous prie d'agréer, etc.
(Signé) Dr 1. KERNO,
Secrétaire généraladjoint,
Département juridique. '

Annexed Document No. 5

C.N.I~~.I~~O.TREATIES.-Corr igendnm
-

1 Portait rectificatd'uneerreur (texte fran~ais). Non reproduit. WRITTEN STATEYENT OF THE U.S.-ANNEXES II5

PART TW0.-NOTIFICATIONS BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
OF RESERVATIONS

Annexed Document No. 6

C.N.I~O.I~~~.TREATIES

CONVENTION OF 9 DECEMBER1 ,948,ON THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE

Signature by the Union of the Soviet Socialist Reptrblics '

30 December, 1949.
Sir.
1 have the honour to inform you that on 16 December, 1949, the
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Union of the
Soviet Socialist Republics to the United States of America signed, on
behalf of hi Government, the Convention of g December, 1948, on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide "with the reser-
vations regarding Articles IX and XII stated in the special firocès-verbal
drawn up on signature of the present Convention". A certified copy of
thisprocès-verbalis herewith attached.
The present notification is made in accordance with Article XVII (a)

of the Convention.
1 have, etc. For the Secretary-General :

(Signed) IVANKERNO,
Assistant Secretary-General,
Legal Department.

Annexed Document No. 7

His Exceilency Mr. A. S. ~an~ushkih, Ambassador of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics to the United States, prior to signing the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
in the officeof the Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Legal
Department, at the Inteiim Headquarters of the United Nations, on
Friday, 16 December, 1949, made the following statement :

"At the time of signing the present Convention the delegation
of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics deems it essential to
state the following :

As regards Article II; : The Soviet Union does not consider as
bind-ng upon itself the provisions of Article IX which provides that
1 Notificationsent,in Englishor in French, to States which had iiot yet
ratifieor acceded.116 IVRITTES STATEYEST OF THE U.S.-AKSEXES

disputes between the Contracting Parties with regard to the inter-
pretation, application and implementation of the present Conven-
tion shall be referred for examination to the International Court at
the request of anyparty to the dispute. and declares that, as regards
the International Court's jurisdiction in respect of disputes concem-
ing the interpretation, application and implementation of the
Convention, the Soviet Union will, as Iiitherto, maintain the position
that in each particular case the agreement ofl1parties to the dispute
is essential for the submission of any particular, dispute to the
International Court for decision.
As regards Article XII :The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
declares that it is not in agreement with Article XII of the Conven-
tion and considers that al1the provisions of the Convention shoulf
extend to non-self-governing territones, including trust temtones.

In witness whereof the present firocès-tierbl as dram up
Done at Lake Success, New York, this 16th day of December, 1949.

(Signed) Dr. 1. KERNO,
Assistant Secretary-General
in charge of the Legal Department.

Translation by the'secretariat :

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
of the U.S.S.R. to the United States of Amenca,
(Signed) A. PANYUSHKIN.
16 XII 49.
Certified true copy :
(Signed) IVANS. KERNO.
Assistant Secretary-General.
Legal Department.

Annexed Document No. 8

c.N.170 & 17z.194g.TREATIES.-Corrige ' ndum

1 Contained a rectification of error(English text). Xot reproduced. WRITTES ST4TEhlEST OF THE U.N.-ANNEXES "7

Annexed Document No. g

Signature de la convention par l'Union des .Républiques socialistes
soviétiques'

Le 30 décembre 1949.

.l'ai l'lioniieur de \.nus informer qiie II!IOdkccmbre Ir+). 1'anibn~s:i-
deiir cxtr;ior(liii:iirc et l>l6iiipottnti;iire dc I'Uiiii>iiiles l<~~~ublii]ues
sociaiistes sovil.titliies aux ttats-Unis <l':\m?riqiiç .Isigiié.au nom (le
son Gou\~crncnieiit. I:iConventioir du q d;ceriil~rc ir,qS 1)our 1;tprL:vt!n-
tiuri ct la rCpressioii du criinc de gtnocide, sou, IV;r6ser\.~.srcl;iti\,ci.
aux articles1X et ?(Il funiiiii?es d;liis Ic nrocr\j-vcrl>nl5ilr:ci;iiCt;iiliiIilrs
de la signature de la présente convention ».
La présente notification est faite conformément aux dispositions de
l'article XVII a) de la convention.
Vous trouverez ci-joint une copie certifiéeconforme du texte anglais
du proces-verbal. Je regrette, à ce propos, de ne pouvoir vous envoyer
immédiatement le texte français de ce procès-verbal, que je vous ferai
parvenir dès que la traduction en sera achevée.
Je vous prie d'agréer, etc.
Pour le Secrétaire général :

(Signé) IVANKERNO,
Secrétaire généraladjoint,
Département juridique.

Annexed Document No. 10

Annexed Document No. II

Soii Escelleiice Ilonsieur A. S. I'snyiijl.kiii, ~iiil>sssidciir dc I'L'nioii
des l<i.r>iibliririeisocirilistzs sovir'tiuues aux Etats-Ciiis d'~\m~rioiie.
avant de signer la Convention pour'la prévention et la répressionAdu
crime de génocide,a fait, le vendredi 16 decembre 1949, dans le bureau
du Secrétairegénkraladjoint chargédu Département juridique, au siège
provisoire de l'organisation des Nations Unies, la déclaration suivante :

' Notification faite. en frangaiou en anglais, aux Btats n'ayant pas encore
ratifieou adhere.
Portait rectification d'une erreur (texte français). Xon reproduit.116 IYRIïTES STATEMEST 01: THE U.S.-ANNEXES

cAu moment de signer la présente convention, la délégationde
l'Union des Républiques socialistes soviétiques tient expressément
àdéclarerce qui suit :

En ce qui concernel'article IX : L'Union soviétiquene s'estime
pas tenue par les dispositions de l'article IX qui stipule que les
différends entre les parties contractantes relatiàsl'interprétation,
l'application ou-l'exécutionde la présente convention seront soumis
à l'examen de la Cour internationale de Justice à la requête d'une
partie au différend,et déclare qu'en ce qui concerne la compétence
de la Cour en matike de diffhrends relatifs à l'interprétation,
l'application et l'exécution de la convention, l'union soviétique
continuera à soutenir, comme elle l'a fait jusqu'à ce jour, que, dans
chaque cas particulier, l'accord de toutes les parties au différendest
nécessaire pour que la Cour internationale de justice puisse être
saisie de ce différendaux fins de décision.
En ce qui concernel'article XII :L'Union des Républiquessocia-
listes soviétiques déclarequ'elle n'accepte pas les termes de l'arti-
cle XII de la convention et estime que toutes les clauses de ladite
convention devraient s'appliquer aux territoires non autonomes, y
compris les temtoires sous tutelle»

En foi de quoi nous avons dressé leprésentprocès-verbal.
Fait à Lake Success (New-York), le 16 décembre 1949.

(Signé) 1. KERNO,
Secretaire généraladjoint,
Département juridique.

(Traduction effectuée par le Secrétariat)

Ambassadeur extraordinaire et plénipoteiitiaire
de l'Union des Républiques socialistes soviétiques
aux Etats-Unis d'Amérique,
(Si~né)A. PANYUSHKIN.
16 XII 49.
Copie certifiée conforme :

(signé) IVAN S. KBRXO,
Secrétaire généraladjoint,
Département juridique. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.N.-ANNEXES 119

Annexed Document No. 12

c.N.170 a.194q.TREATIES

CONVENTION OF 9 DECEMBEK1,948, ON THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
Signature by the Union of the Soviet Socialist Refiublic'

30 December, 1949.
Sir,

1 have the honour to infonn you that on 16 December, 1949, the
Minister for Foreign Affairsof the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics
signed, on behalf of bis Govemment, the Convention of g December,
1948, on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
"with the reservations regarding Articles IX and XII stated in the special
firocès-verbaldrawn up on signature of the present Convention". A
certified copy of this procès-verbalis herewith attached. The present

notification is made in accordance with Article XVII (a) of the
Convention.
On ....aan instrument of ratification of this Convention was deposited
on behalf of your Government.
As depository ofthe present Convention, 1should like to be informed,
at the earliest possible opportunity, of the attitude of your Govemment
with regard to these reservations.
Under Article XII1 of the Convention, the Secretary-General is
required on the day when the first twenty instruments of ratification
or accession have been deposited, to draw up a firocès-verbaland to
transmit a copy of it to each Member of the United Nations and to each
of the non-member States contemplated in Article XI ofthe Convention.

On that day when the first twenty instruments are deposited and the
procès-verbalis drawn up it will be necessary that the attitude of the
parties to the Convention with regard to the afore-mentioned reser-
vationsbedetermined. In this connexion, it willbe my understanding that
al1States which have ratified or acceded to the present Convention have
accepted these reservations, unless they have notified me of objections
thereto pnor to the day on which the first twenty instruments of ratifi-
cation or accession have been deposited.
1 have, etc.
For the Secretary-General :
(Signed) IVANKERNO,

Assistant Secretary-General,
Legal Department.

' Notificationsent to Statewhich had already ratified.
'For inserts sefollowingList:
Aushalia 8 VIIqg Norway 22 VII 49
Ecuador 21XII 49 Iceland zg vrrr49
Ethiopia I VII49120 WRITTEF STATEMENT OF THE U.N.-ANNEXES

Annexed Document No. 13

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY-GENERAL TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN
AFFAIRS OE THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS

LEG.318/2/or/AL.

13 January, 1950.
Sir,
1have the honour to refer to the signature affixed by His Excellency
the Ambassador of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the United
States of America on 16December, 1949,on behalf of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Kepublics to the Convention of g December, 1948, on the Pre-
vention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide "with the reser-
vations regarding Articles IX and XII stated in the speciai procès-verbal

drawn up on signature of the present Convention".
In pursuance of Article XVII (a) of the Convention, the Secretary-
General has addressed an identical letter to the RIember States which
have ratified the Convention and another identicailetter to au the other
Member States and to al1non-member States contemplated in Article XI
of the Convention. One copy of each of these two letters is herewith
enclosed for your information.
1 have, etc.
For the Secretary-General :
(Signed) IVANKERNO,

Assistant Secretary-General,
Legal Department.

Annexed Document No. 14

CONVENTION OF 9 DECEAIBER 1,948,ON THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIAIE OF GENOCIDE
Signature by the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic'

Annexed Document No. 15

His Excellency Mr. Kuzma Venediktovich Kiselev, Rlinister for
Foreign Affairs of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, prior to
signing the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime

of Genocide, in the office of the Assistant Secretary-General in charge
of the Legal Department, at the Interim Headquarters of the United
Nations, on Fnday, 16 December, 1949, made the foiiowing statement :
' Letter dated December30th. 1949.which ismutatismuladis the same as
Annexed Document So. 6. Sot reprduced. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.N.-ANSESES 121

"At the time of signing the present Convention the delegation of
the Byelornssian Soviet Socialist Republic deems it essential to state
the following :

As regards Article IX: The Byeiomssian S.S.R. does not
consider as bindine -.on itself the ~rovisions of Article IX which
pro\.iilc-;tli:it disputch L>et\i.ccrtih< conrrnctiii,: 1)artivitlrïgtird
1,)tl~c~iiterprct?tion, :tppltc:~ti.iIII<I~II~~~~~III~.II~of t11eprcscnt
Con\,vnrioii jli;illic referred for c~;~niin.îrioiitu thx Ii~tt.r~~:~tto~i:~I
Court at the request of any party to thedispute, and declares that,
as regards the International Court's jurisdiction in respect of
disputes concerning the interpretation, application and implemen-
tation of the Convention, the Byelomssian S.S.R. will, as hitherto,
maintain the position that in each particular case the agreement of
al1 parties to the dispute is essential for the submission of any
particular dispute to the International Court for decision.

As regards Article XII : The Byelornssian S.S.R. declares that
it is not in agreement with Article XII of the Convention and
considers that al1 the provisions of the Convention should extend
to non-self-governing territories, including tmst territories."
In witness whereof the present procès-verbalwas drawn up.

Done at ~ake Snccess, New York, this 16th day of December, 1949.

(Signed) K. V. KISELEV. (Signed) Dr. 1. KERNO,
16 XII 49. Assistant Secretary-General
in charge of the Legal Department.

Certified true copy :
(Signed) IVANS. KERNO,
Assistant Secretaq-General,

Legal Department.

Annexed Document No. 16

Signature de la convention par la République socialistesoviétiqr~e de
Biélorrcssie'

1 Lettre en dato du 30 d8cïmbre 1545,dont le texte est rntilofir niufafules
m&me que celui d" document annçxdno 5.Non reproduite.122 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.N.-ANNEXES

Annexed Document No. 17

Sou Excellence Monsieur Kuzma Venediktovich Kiselev, ministre des
Affaires étrangèresde la République socialiste soviétique de Biélorussie,
avant de signer la Convention pour la prévention et la répression du
crime de génocide,a fait, le vendredi 16 décembre1949, dans le bureau
du Secrétaire généraladjoint chargédu Département juridique, au siège
provisoire de l'organisation des Nations Unies, la déclaration suivante :
..:\u riiomcnr dr signcr 1;ipr6scntr con\.cntion, la dClr:g;itiodf:
la R;,)lihli<lu~socialiste sii\~i&ti(1,UiCIoru~ir ticnt rul)rcss;meiit
à déciarerce quisuit :

En ce qui concernel'article IX : La R. S. S. de Biélorussie ne
s'estime pas tenue par les dispositions de l'article IX qui stipule
que les différends entre les parties contractantes relatifsà l'inter-
prétation, l'application ou l'exécution de la présente convention
seront soumis à l'examen de la Cour internationale de Justice à la
requête d'unepartie au différend,et déclarequ'en ce qui concerne
la compétence de la Cour en matière de différendsrelatifs àI'inter-
prétation, l'application et l'exécutionde la convention, la R. S. S. de
Biélorussie continuera à soutenir, comme elle l'a fait jusqu'à :e
au différendest nécessairepour que la Cour internationale puissearties
êtresaisie de ce différendaux fins de décision.

En ce qui concernel'articleXII: La R. S. S. de Biélorussiedéclare
qu'elle n'accepte pas les termes de l'article XII de la convention et
estime que toutes les clauses de ladite convention devraient s'appli-
quer aux territoires non autonomes, y compris les territoires sous
tutelle.r
Eu foi de quoi nous avons dressé leprésent procès-verbal.

Fait à Lake Success (New-York), le 16 décembre1949.

(Signé) K. V. KISELEV. (Signé) 1. KERNO,
16 XII 49. Secrétaire généraladjoint,
Département juridique.

Copie certifiée conforme :
(Signé) IVANKERNO,
Secrétaire généraladjoint,
Département juridique. WRITTESSTATEhlENTOF THE U.S.-ANNEXES I23

Annexed Document No. 18

c.N.171 a.1g4g.TREAT11.3S

CONVENTION 01' 9 IIIICI?hlRER1,948, ON THE 12KEVENT10N AND

FUNISHhlENT OP THE CRIME OF GENOCI1)li
Signature by the I3yclounssiiinSoviet Socialist Kepublic '

Annexed Document No. 19

LEG.318/z/or

THE ASSISTANT SECRETIIRY-GENER AL THE AIINISTER FOR FOREIGN
AFFAIRS OF THE BYBLOKUSSIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC'

Annexed Document No. zo

C.N.I~Z.I~~~.TREATIES

CONVENTION OF 9 IIECEMBER, 1948, ON THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE

Sisnalzlre by the Uhrai~rian Soviet Socialist Repirblica

Annexed Document No. 21

His Exceiiency MI. Alexi Dorofeevich Voina, Deputy Foreign Minister
of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, prior to signing the Conven-
tion on the Prevention and Runishment ofthe Crime of Genocide, inthe
officeof the Assistant Sccretary-Getieral in charge of the Legal Depart-
ment, at the Interim Headquarters of the United Nations, on Friday,
16December, 1949,'nade the followingstatement :

"At the time of signing the present Convention the delegation
of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republicdeems it essential to state
the foilowing :

As regards Article I,Y : The Ukrainian S.S.R. does not consider
as binding upon itself the provisions of Article 1); which provides
that disputes between the Contracting Parties with regard to the

' Letter datedDecember 30th. 1949. whichis mutafis r>ttifonthe same as
Annexed Document No. 12. Sot reproduced.
a Letter dated January 13th. 1950, which isrnutatis inritandthe same as
Annexed Document No. 13. Sot reproduced.
Letter datedDecember 29th. 1949.which is mufafir mutandisthe same as
AnnexedDocument No. O.Not reproduced.
9 WRITTES STATEblEST OF THE U.N.-ASSEXES
124
iierr:t~io~, application and iinplcmr.ntation of the picsent
Coii\,ei~tir,iisliall hc réfcrred for cs;~ininntiun to the Intcrnntiuii~l
Court at the reauest of anv o2 .v to the disoute. aiid declares that.
: rc;xrrla the' Intcrn:itiun;il C'uurt's iiiri;<lictiuiiiii respcct of
<lisl~it<.isi,iictriiiiil: tlie iiit~:i~ir~*np, li~arioii and iniplciiicnr-
;itiuii of tlii: Cuiivéiitiùii.tlic Ckrni1ii;in S.S.l<.\r.illns hirliertù.
maintain the position thai iii each particular case the'agreement of
al1 parties to the dispute is essential for the submission of any
particular dispute to the International Court for decision.

As regards Article XII : The Ukrainian S.S.R. declares tliat it
is not in agreement \\<th Article XII of the Convention aiid considers
that al1the provisions of the Convention should extend 10 non-self-
governing territories, including tmst territories."

In witness whereof the present procès-uerba l aç drawn up.
Done at Lake Success, New York, this 16th day of December, 1049.

Translation bv the Secretariat : (Si~ned) Dr. 1. KEKNO,
Assistant secretar~-General
Deputy l\Iinisterof Foreign Affairs
of tlie Ukrainian S.S.R., in charge of theLegalDepartmcnt.
(Sig~zed)A. VOIN.+. Certified 'true copy :
16 XII 49.
(Signed) 1. KEKNO,
Assistant Secretary-Geiieral,
Legal Department.

Annexed Document No. 22

Sigrraticrede la co~wentioitpar la Répzibliquesocialiste souiétique
d' Ukraine '

Annexed Document No. 23

Son Excellence Monsieur Alexi Dorofeevich Voina. ministre adjoint
des Affaires étrangèresde la République socialiste soviétiqued'Ukraine,
avant de signer la Convention pour la prévention et la répression du
crime de génocide, afait, le vendredi 16 décembre 1949, dans le bureau

' Lettre en date du 30 décembre 1949,dont le texte estmtitolirmilfondis le
meme que celui du document annexé n' g. A-on reproduite. WRITTEN STATEblENT OF THE U.N.-ASNEXES 12.5

du Secrétaire généraladjoint chargé du Département juridique, au
siège provisoire de l'Organisation des Nations Unies, la déclaration
suivante :

n Au moment de signer la présente convention, la délégationde
la République socialiste soviétique d'Ukraine tient expressément à
déclarer ce qui suit :

En ce qzriconcernel'article IX : La République socialiste sovié-
tique d'Ukraine ne se considèrepas comme liéepar les dispositions
de l'article IX qui stipule que les différendsentre les parties contrac-
tantes relatifs à l'interprétation, l'application ou l'exécution de la
présente convention seront soumis à l'examen de la Cour inter-
nationale de Justice à la requêted'une partie au différend,et déclare
qu'en ce qui concerne la compétence de la Cour en matière de
différends relatifsà l'interprétation, l'application et l'exécution de
la convention, la R. S. S. d'Ukraine continuera à soutenir, comme
elle l'a fait jusqu'à cc jour, la thèse selon laquelle, dans chaque cas
particulier, l'accord de toutes les parties au différendest indispen-
sablepour que la Cour internationale puisse êtresaisie de cedifférend
aux fins de décision.

En ce qui concernel'article XII : La R. S. S. d'Ukraine déclare
qu'elle ne donne pas soi] accord à l'article XII de la convention et
estime que toutes les dispositions de la convention devraient s'appli-
quer aux territoires non autonomes, y compris les territoires sous
tutelie.n

En foi de quoi nous avons dressé le présentprocès-verbal.
Fait àLake Success (New-York),le 16décembre1949.

(Traduction effectuéepar le (Signé) 1. KERNO,
Secrétariat) Secrétaire généraladjoint,

Le Ministre adioint des Affaires Département juridique.
étrangères dé la République Copie certifiéeconforme:
socialiste soviétiqued'Ukraine,
(Signé)A. VOINA. ,-,enil IVANS. KERNO,
Secrétaire généraladjoint.
16 XII 49. Département juridique.

Annexed DocumentNo. 24

CONVENTION OF 9 DECEMBER1,948, ON THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRlhIE OF GENOCIDE
Sig?zatureby tlze Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic '

Letter dated December 30th. 1949. which is mtilatimulandis the same as
Annexed Document Xo. 12.Xot reproduced.126 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE u.s.-AXXEXES

Annexed Document No. 25

LEG.~IS/~/~I

THE ASSISTANT SECKETAKY-CIiNEKAL TO THE >IIKISTER FOR FOREIGN
AFFAIIIS OF THE UKllAlNIAN SOVIET SOCIr\LIST REPUl1I.IC '

Annexed Document No. 26

C.N.180.1q4g.TREATIES

COPIVENTIOPI OF 9 DECEMBER, 1948, ON THE PREVENTIOX AND
PUKISHIIENT OF THE CRIME OF CEXOCIDE

Sig~iatnrebv Czechoslouakia

Annexed Document No. 27

Hi, lCx~~t.Ilt-ii~\I. \'la~liniicOutr:ir;~,.Aiiil)~~s~:irl ofrC~c~I~usl~~v:~ki:i
ti, tlac I.iiitcil.Sr:irt>uf :\iii~:ii,, pri<~rro ~i~iiiii:tlic Coii\,ciirioii oii
tlic I1rc\.~iirii,;iii<II'uiiisl.iiiciit oi rlie iriii>f(;ciio:irlc.iii rli,iiilicc
uf tlic :\~iiitnnr ~ccrct:ir~.G~~~cra ii charge of tlit1.cfixlI)cl>:1tiiieiit.
at tlic Iiiiriini Hcï,l,iusrt~rs uf the ~riitecl Satiuiij, oii \\'ediic.scl:i)~,
28 Decernber, 1949. made the following statement :

"At the time of signing the present Convention the delegation
of Czechoslovakia deems it essential to state the following :

As regards Article IS : Czechoslovakia does not consider as
binding upon itself the provisions of Article IX which provides

t~a~ ~isou,es between the Contractine Parties with reeard to the
iiitcrpretntion. npplic:ition ;iii<Iiriil>lemeiit;ition uf tlie prcseiit
(:ori\.cnrioii sh:ill I>erclcrrr.d fùr examin;iriuii ti~tIic 11ilcriiation;il
Court at the request of anyparty ta the dispute, and declares tliat,
as regards the International Court's junsdiction in respect of
disputes concerniiig the interpretation, application and irnple-
mentation of tlie Convention, Czechoslovakia will, as Iiitherto,
maiiitain the position that in each particular case the agreement

of al1 parties to the dispute is essential for the submission of any
particular dispute to the International Court for decision.

As regards Article XII : Czechoslovakia declares that it is not
in agreement with Article XII of the Convention and considers

1Letter dated Janiiary 13th. 1950, which is mutatis >ni<tnadisthe saine as
Annexed Document Xo. 13. Sot reproduced.
Letter dated December zgth, 1949. which is mutatis rtiiiln*~dithe same aç
Annexed Document No. 6. Nat reproduced. WRITTENSTATEZIEST OF THE U.N.-ASNEXES 127

that al1 the provisions of the Convention should extend to non-
self-governing territories, including trust territories."

In witness whereof the present pocès-verbal was drawn up.
Done at Lake Success, New York, this 28th day of December, 1949.

(Signed) Dr. 1. KERNO, (Signed) OUTRATA,

Assistant Secretary-General Ambassador of Czechoslovakia
in charge of the Legal Department. to the United States of America
Certified true copy :

(Signed) IVANS. KEKNO,
Assistant Secretary-General,
Legal Department.

Annexed Document No. 28

C.N.IS~.I~~~.TREATIE~

CONVENTION DU 9 DÉCEMBRE 1948 POUR LA PRÉVENTION
ET LA REPRESSIO DU CRIME DE GÉNOCII)E
Signature de la conuention par la Tchécoslovaqzii e

Annexed Document No. 29

Son Excellence Monsieur Vladimir Outrata, ambassadeur de Tchéco-
slovaquie aux Etats-Unis d'Amérique, avant de signer la Convention
pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide, a fait, le
mercredi zS décembre1949,dans le bureau du Secrétairegénéraladjoint
chargédu Département juridique, au siègeprovisoire de l'organisation
des Nations Unies, la d&clnration suivante :

«Au moment de signer la présente convention, la délégationde
Tchécoslovaquie tient expressément à déclarer ce qui suit :
En cequi cotrcernel'article I.Y :La Tchécoslovaquiene s'estime
pas tenue par les dispositions de l'articleIX qui stipule que les
différendsentre les parties contractantes relatifà l'interprétation.
l'application ou l'exécutionde la présente convention seront soumis
à l'examen dc la Cour internationale de Justice à la requête d'une
partie au différend,et déclarequ'en ce qui concerne la compétence
de la Cour en matiere de différends relatifs à l'interprétation,
l'application et l'exécution de la convention, la Tchécoslovaquie

--- continuera à soutenir, comme elle l'a fait jusqu'à ce jour, que,
'Lettre en dato du 30 dCcernbrc1949. dontle texte est miitalis mutanles
m2me que celui du document annexe n' 9. Non reproduite. ''128 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE u.N.-ANNEXES

dans chaque cas particulier, l'accord de toutes les parties au dif-
férend est nécessaire pour que la Cour internationale de Justice
puisse êtresaisie de ce différend aux fins de décision.

En ce quiconcerne l'article XII: La Tchécoslovaquie déclare
qu'elle n'accepte pas les termes de l'article XII de la convention
et estime que toutes les clauses de la convention devraient s'appli-
quer aux temtoires non autonomes, y compris les territoires sous

tutelle.n
En foi de quoi nous avons dressé le présent procès-verbal.

Fait à Lake Success (New-York), le 28 décembre 1949.

(Signé) 1. KERNO, (Signé) OUTIIATA,
Secrétaire généraladjoint, Ambassadeur de Tchécoslovaquie

Département juridique. aux Etats-Unis d'Amérique.
Copie certifiée conforme :

(Signé) IVANS. KERNO,
Secrétaire généraladjoint.
Département juridique.

Annexed Document No. 30

C.N.180a.1g4g.TREATIES

CONVENTION OF 9 DECEMBER, 1948, ON THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE

Signature by Czechoslouakia '

Annexed Document No. 31

LEG.~IS/Z/O~/MB

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY-GENERAL TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN

AFFAIRS OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA '

datedoDecemheron30th.t1949, which is mtltntismutandishtheorsameedas.Annexed

Document No. 12. Not reproduced.'
a Letter dated January 13th, ,950, which is mtdntis mutandis the same as
Annexed Document Na. 13. Not reproduccd. WRllTES STiITB>IENT OF THE I7.S.-ASSEXES 129

Annexed Document No. 32

C.N.II~.I~~O.TREATIES
CONVENTION OP 9 DECEMBEK, 1948, ON THE PKEVENTION AND

PUXISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
Ratification uiith Rescrvutions by the RepublicO/ the Philippillcs'

Annexed Document No. 33

INSTRUMllNT OF RATIFICATION
Malacanaii Palace

Malrila

BY THE I'RESII>ENT OF THE PHILIPPINES
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETINGS :

WHEREAS,the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide was approved by the General Assembly of the
United Nations during its tliird session on December 9, 1948, and was
signed by the autliorized represeiitative of the l'hilippines oii Deceni-

ber II, 1948 :
WHEREAS,Article SI of the Convention provides thnt the present
Convention shall be ratifiecland the instruments of ratification deposited
with the Secretary-Genernl of the United Nations ; and

WHEREAS,the Senate of the Philippines, by its Resolution No. 9,
adopted on February 28, igjo, concurred in the ratification by the Pres-
ident of the Philippines of the aforesaid Convention in accordance,with
the Constitution ofthe Philippines, subject to the followingreservations:

"1. With reference to Article IV of the Convention, the Philippine
Government cannot sanction any situation whicli would subject its
Head of State, who is not a ruler, to conditionsess favourable than
those accorded other Heads of State, whether constitutionally
responsible rulers or not. The Philippine Governmerit does not
consider said article, therefore, as ovemding the cxisting immuni-
ties from judicial processes guaranteed certain publiofficiaiby the
Constitution of the Philippines.
2. With reference to Article VI1 of the Convention, the Philippine
Government does not undertake to give effect to said article until

the Congress of the Philippines has enacted the necessary legislatioii
defining and punishing the crime of genocide, which legislation,
under the Constitution of the Philippines, cannot have any retro-
active effect.
3. IVith reference to Articles VI and IS of the Convuntion, the
Philippine Government takes the position that nothing contained

' Letter dated July 31s~ggo,which isntt<latwt'tandis the samc as hnnexed
Document No. 6.Not reproduced.130 WRITTEX STATEJIEST OF THE U.S.-ASSEXES

in said articles shall be construed as depriving Philippine courts of
jurisdiction overal1cases of genocide committed within Philippine
territory save only in those cases where the Philippine Government
consents to have the decision of the Philippine courts reviewed by
either of the international tribunals referred to ind articles. With
fiirther reference to Article IX of the Convention, the Philippine
Government does not consider said article to extend the concept of
State responsibility beyond that recognizedby the generally accepted
principles of international law."

New, THEREFORE b,e it known tilat1, ELP~DIO QUIRINOP , resident of
the Philippines, after having seen and considered the said Convention,
do hereby, in pursuance of the aforesaid concurrence of the Senatc and
snbject to the reservations above quoted, ratify and confirm the same
and every article and clause thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF1 , have hereiinto set my hand and caused the
seal of the Republic of the Philippines to be affixed.

Doue in the City of Manila, this ~3rd day of June, in the year of Our
Lord, nineteen hundred and fifty, and of the Independence of the Philip-
. in .s.the fourtli.
(Signed) QUII~INO.
Uy the President :

(Signed) FELINONERI,
Uiider-Secretary of Foreign Afiairs.

Certified true copy:
(Signed) A. H. FELLER,
General Counsel and Principal Director,
Legal Department.

Annexed DocumentNo. 34

C.N.II~.I~~O.TI<EATIES

CONVENTION DU g DÉCEMBRE 1948 POUR LA PREVENTION
ET LA RÉPRESSION DU CRIME DE GÉNOCIDE

Ralificalio~zavec réseniespar la Républiyi$edes Philippines '

' Lettre en date d3r juille1950,dont le textest mi'lalis %!ilandimrmce
que celui du document anncxé na g Xon reproduite. Annexed Document No. 35

INSTRUMENT DE RATIFICATION

Palais Malacanan

illanille

CONSIVÉKANqT ue la Convention pour la prévention et la répression
du crime de génocide a étéapprouvée par l'Assemblée généraledes
Nations Unies à sa troisième session, le 9 décembre 1948, et signéele
II décembre 1948 par le représentant autorisé des Philippines ;
i'ur;siiiiiic.\s~ c,uc, 1':iitiSIc tItI;ict~iii.eiitit~ii<li?lit,îctlii'i:llcsera
r;illli~~t?tqilt: ln ir~stri~nl~nl;rlc r~,liiic~.l~~;cl111d(po56s ~111pr:s cl11
Sccrfi.iir~.gr'iii'rnldi. I'0rg:iiiis:iriuii dcs S:itiuiis Un;eet

CON~IV~RAN qTue, danssa Résolution no 9 adoptée le 28 février1950,
le Sénat des Philippines a donné son assentiment à la ratification de la
susdite convention par le Président des Philippines conformément a la
Constitution des Philippines, sous condition des réserves suivantes :

uI. ISnce qui concerne l'article IV de la convention, le Gouverne-
ment des Phil.vvi..s ne Deut sanctionner un réeime selon leauel
suri clief i-I'l<t;it.qui ii'e[>:LSUIIgdu\,\.ernliitSC t~oii(.crnitSOUII~I~
:i iiitrniJciiiciit iiiiiiiis f:ivur:iblu (lu: i~iiest ;iccordL:;i<l'autres
~.lit.fsc1'ISt.it.<-lii'ilisoiciiiiiiclesg~~ii\i.rii.<iis~~~ii?tiiiitioiiiieIlc-
iiiciit resl~oii~dbl~;.I:n c~iiis.:(~iicii,e%i;i>iiv,:rit<,iit (1,:s I'liilili-
~)iii?s[IL.cuiijid;rc pi que Ici-lit:irticIe abolis;<:It: iiiiiiiiii~itCsci1
iiiati6rc (lc n<niirsiiitt:.isi~~I~ct~~is 1:~'O~I~IIIIIII~dt.5 I'l~i..i~i~ine~
reconnaît nctuellemen't au bénéficé de certains fonctionnaires.

2. En ce qiii concerne l'article VI1 dela convention, le Gouver-
nement des Philiooi..s ne s'eneaee,.~asà.donner effet audit article
awnt que IcConsrés dcs I'liilippines nit ndol>tc ln l6gislntiori qiii
s'iiiipow pnor ilCfiiiirt:t piinir 1,:criin*:(g:C.iiocirlv,ci~tteI;.yislation
ritii<,iiv;iiit:ivi>ir<I'i:ifvtr;tro;t:iiisterines dc lii(:oi~stitution des
Philippines.
3. En ce qui concerne les articles VI et IX de la convention,
le Gouvernement des Philippines mainticiit qu'aucune dispositioii
desdits articles ne sera interprétée comme enlevant aux tribunaux
des Philippines la compétence à l'égardde tous les actes de génocii-le
commis l'intérieur du territoire des Philippines, à la seule exceptioii

des cas daris lesquels le Gouvernement des Philippines donnera son
accord pour que la décisionrendue par les tribunaux des Philippines
soit soumise à l'examen de l'une des juridictions internationales
mentionnées dans lesdits articles. Eii ce qui concerne plus précisé-
ment l'article IX de la convention. le Goii\.ernemeut des Philiuui..s
ne cuiisii-lcrep:ij (lue ledit article donne In notinii dc respriiisnhilit6
Ct;itiqii~~iiie (!tciidiie plus grande que celle qui Iiii est atrril~ii6c par
les priiicil~esdu droit intcriiationnl géii~r;ilemcnrrccoiiriii;..132 WRITTEN STATEBIENT OF THE U.N.-ANSEXES

13NCONSÉQUEX~ NE,us, ELPIDIOQUIRINOP , résident des Philippines,
vu le texte de ladite conveiitioii, conformément h l'assentiment susmeii-
tioniiédu Sénatet comptetenu des réserves précitées, ratifions et confir-
mons par les présentesladite coiivention dans chacun de ses articles et de
ses cliuses. -

EN FOI DE QUOI,XOUSavons revêtu les présentes de notre signature
et fait apposer le sceau de la République des Philippines.
Fait en la ville de hfanille, le3 juin de l'an de grâce mil neuf cent
cinqilante, quatrième année de l'indépendancedes Philippines.

(Signé)QUIRINO.
Par le Président :
(Sigité) FELIXONERI,

-
(Traduction du Secrétariat)

Copie certifiéeconforme :
(Si&'l2éA). H. I'ELLER,
Conseiller généralet Directeur principal,
Département juridique.

Annexed Document No. 36

C.N.114 ~.I~~o.TREATIES

CONVENTION OF 9 DECEMBER 1,948,ON THE I'REVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE

Ratificatioitwith Reseruatioitsby the RepublicofthePhilippines I

Annexed Document No. 37

CONVENTION DU 9 IIÉCEMBRE 1948 POUR Li\PRÉVENTION
ET LA RÉPRESSION DU CRIME DE' GÉNOCIDE

Ratification avec réservesbar la Réptrbliqtre des Philippines

Le 31juillet 1950.
Monsieur le Ministre,
Je suis chargé par le Secrétaire généralde vous faire connaître
que, le 6 juillet 1950,le cliargéd'affaires par intérim de la Mission des

' Notification sent to States which had already ratified or acceded.-Lctter
dated July 31st1950,which is>nuLafirnutandisthe same as Annexed Document
So. 12. Sot reproduced.
Sotification faien,fransais ou en anglaaux États ayant ratiouéadh6r.4. WRITTES STATEhIEST OF THE U.S.-.ASSEXES '33

Philippines auprèsdes Nations Uniesa transmis aux fins de dépôtl'instru-
ment de ratification. avec réserves. dela Ré~ubliouedes Phili~dnes à la
Convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de'génocide.
Ci-joint copie certifiée conformedecet instrument de ratification.
La présente notification est faite conformément aux dispositions de
l'article XVII a) de ladite convention.
Un instrument d'adhésion à cette convention a étédéposé à la date
du ...au nom du Gouvernement de ....
Le Secrétaire général,en sa qualité de dépositaire de la convention
ci-dessusmentionnée,vous serait obligéde bien vouloir lui faire connaître
dans le délaile lus uroche l'attitude de votre Gouvernement à I'éeard
clesr;.ser\.c<lu Louv;rncrncnt <If: II<'Lliiil)litcleiI'liilil>l>ines.
ConfonnCmrnr .iii <li~lii>iitiorisdc 1';irticlc Sllclc 1:icoii!,cntiuii
clésIc iour uii Irviiirt i>rcniicrsinstriimeiits (le r:itific;iouun(I'adliC-
sion auiont étédéposîs,le Secrétaire général dresseraprocès-verbal. II
transmettra copie de,ce proces-verbal à tous les Etats Membres des
Nations Unies et aux Etats non membres visésDar l'article SI n. Le ioiir
ou les \,in@j~reinierjinstriiriiciits de r;itificntioii ai21:nt(IL'poscsvt IL.
1>roc~s-\~r!rI)inrlc?silsera iiéceislire~IIC'I':ittiIu(dei I.t;its qiniircjiit
ratifié uii ndli~;rt3 In convcntion à ICriird clej rCservrs 111~1itioiii16~i
ci-dessus soit précisée.Sauf notification zes objections de votre Gouver-
nement avant l'établissement du procès-verbal de dép6t des viiigt
~remiers instruments de ratification et d'adhésion.le Secrétaire eéne-al
onilrr I I vit: ~~~riieriicrii accepte 1c.jr;ier\.cj du Coiii*:riii:-
ineiit (lcIn Hi'piibli~~dccsl'lii..~>i)iiics.
Je vous prie d'agiéer,etc.

(Signé) A. H. FELLER,
Conseiller généralet Directeur principal,
Département juridique.

Annexed Document No. 38

THE GENERAL COUNSEL AXD PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF THE LEGAL
DEPARTMENT OF THE USITED SATIONS TO THE PERMANENT MISSION OF
THE PHILIPPINES TO THE UNITED NATIONS

31 July. 1950.
Sir,
1 am directed by the Secretary-General to acknowledge the receipt
of your letter of 6 July, 1950, transmitting, for deposit, the original of
the instrument of ratification with reservations, of the Government of
the Kepublic of the Philippines of the Convention on Prevention and
~unishment of the Crime of Genocide.
1 am further directed by the Secretary-General to inlorm you that
this instmment of ratification with reservations mav be received in
deposit only subject to no objection being taken by an$ State which has
already ratified or acceded to the Conventioii or by any State which may131 WRITTES STATEJIEST OF THE u.N.-ANSEXES
ratify or accede to the Convention prior to the day on which the first

twenty instruments of ratification or accession shall have been deposited.
In this connexion, 1 have the honour to inform you that, pursuant to
Article XVII fa) of the Convention. the Secretarv-General has trans-
mitted to the' cfember and non-member States which have ratified or
acceded to the Convention, a certified copy of the said instrument of
ratificatiori with reservations. reauestinr-iuchStates to inform him.

accept these reservations unless notification of obiections thereto are
rececvcdprior to the day on which the first twenty instruments of ratifi-
cation or accession have been deposited.
The Sccretary-General also transmitted, pursuaiit to Article XVII (a)
of the Convention, a certified copy of the said instrument of ratification
with reservations toal1other Members of the United Nations and other
non-member States to which an invitation to become a party to the

Convention has been addressed by the General Assembly. One copy of
each of these two letters is herewith ericlosed for your information.
1 have, etc.
(Signed) A. H. IiE~l,E~,

General Counsel aiid I'riiicipal Director,
Legal Dcpartrnent.

Annexed Document No. 39

CosvEsTIos OF g DECE~IBER 1,948,ON THIS PI<EVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
Accession wilh Reservations by the People's Repirblicof Bulgaria 1

Annexed Document No. 40

INSTRUMEKT OF ACCESSION

TITI:PRE~IDIUM OF THE NATIONAL ASSF~A!BLY
OF THE PEOPLE'SREPUBLIC OF BULGARIA

HAVING SEEN AND ESAMINED the Conveiition of g Deceinber, 1948,
on the Preventiori and Punishment of the Crime of Geiiocide,

COSFIR~IS its accession to this Convention with the following reser-
vations :

I. As regards Article IS :The I'eople's Republic of Bulgaria does
not consider as binding upon itself the provisions of Article IX
which provides that disputes between the Contracting Parties

Lettednted Airgirst 3rd. 1950,whisnrt'taisutandisthesamr as Aiiiiexed
Document Su. G.Not reproduced. WRITTES STATEDIEST OF THE U.N.-ASSESES I35
with regard to the interpretation, application and implemen-

tation ofthe present Convention shall be referred for esamination
to the International Court at the request of any party to the
dispute, and declarcs that, as regards the International Court's
jurisdiction in respect of disputes concerning the iritcrpretation.
application and implementation of the Conventioii, tlie People's
Republic of Bulgaria will, as hitherto, maintain the position
that in eacli particular case the agreement of al1parties to the
dispute is essential forthe submission of any particular dispute
to the International Court for decision.

2. As regards Article XII: The People's Republic of Bulgaria
declares that it is not in agreement with Article XII of the
Convention and considers that al1 the provisions.of the Con-
vention should cstencl to non-self-governing territories, including
trust territories.

AND DECLARES its assurance of the application thereof.
IN FAITH WHEKEOFh ,as signed the present instrument and bas had
affixed the seal of the State thereto.

GIVENat Sofia, on 12 July, one thousand nine hundred and fifty.

The President, The Secretary,
(Signed) [Illegible.] (Signeci) [Illegible.]

The &finister for Foreign Affairs,

(Signed) hl. XEITCHEFF.

Translation by the Secretariat :
(Signed) A. H. I~ELLER,

General Counsel and I'riiicipal Director,
Legal Department.

Annexed Document No. 41

C.N.II~.I~~O.TREATIES

COXVENTION DU 9 DÉCEMBRE 1948 POUR LA PRÉVENTION
ET I.A KÉPI<ESSION DU CRIME DE GENOCIDE

Adltésioitavec réservespar In Réfircbliqzip eopzilaire de Uzrlgnrie'

1 Lettre endate du 3 uoiiti9p. dont le texte esmrrlafir miillinIc nihc
que celui du document annex6 no g.Non reproduite.136 WRITTES STATEXEST OF THE u.s.-ASSEXES

Annexed Document No. 42

AYANT VU ET EXA~~INÉ la Convention du g décembre 1948 pour la
pré.ventionet la. répression du crime de génocide,

CONFIRM on adhésion à cette converition avec les réserves sui-
vaiites:
1. /<JIizq.ri iorrrzr~~î'~rrrcle1.V: Li K&publi<lii: ~>~pul~irc clt!
I3iilgalnc s'esriine p.is tciiiie pur Icsdi~~o.;id~.I'articli. IS
oui s~ii,iilcnout IC'SdiiiL:rciidientrc les r~;irii~scnntract:iiitcs
telatifs à l'interprétatioii, l'application Lu l'exécution de la
convention seront soumis A l'examen de la Cour internationale
de Justiceà la requête d'unepartie au différend,et déclare qu'en
ce qui concerne la compétencede la Cour en matière de différends
relatifsà l'interprétation, l'application et l'exécution de la
convention, la République populaire de Bulgarie continuera à .
soutenir, comme elle l'a fait jusqu'à ce jour, que, dans chaque
cas particulier, l'accord de toutes les parties au différend est
nécessaire pour que la Cour internationale de Justice puisse
êtresaisie de ce différend aux fins de décision.

z. En ce qui concerne l'articleXII: La République populaire de
Bulgarie déclare qu'elle n'accepte pas les termes de l'article XII
de la convention et estime que toutes les clauses de ladite
convention devraient s'appliquer aux territoires non autonomes,
y compris les territoires sous tutelle.

ET DÉCLARE en assurer l'application.
EN FOI DE QUOI,a signEles présentes et y a fait apposer le sceau de
l'État.

DONNÉ à Sofia, le12 juillet de l'an mil neuf cent cinquante.

Le Président, Le Secrétaire,
(Signé) [Illisible.] (Signé) [Illisible.]

Le RIinistre des Affaires 6trangères.
(Signé) M: XEITCHEFF.

Copie certifiée conforme :
(Signé) A. H. FELLER,

General Counsel and Principal Director,
Legal Department. WRITTES STATEaIENT OF THE U.S.-ASSEXES I37

Annexed Document No. 43

CONVENTION OF 9 DECEMBER1 ,948, O-U THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
Accession with Reservations by the People's Rep2cblic O/ Hulfnria

Annexed Document No. 44

CONVENTION DU 9 D~CEMBRE 1948 POUR LA PRÉVENTIOS
ET LA R~PRESSION DU CRIME DE GESOCIDE

Adhésio~a ruecréseniespar la Républiquepopulaire de Uarlgarie2

Annexed Document No.-45

LE CONSEILLER GÉNÉRAL ET DIRECTEUR PRINCIPAL DU DÉPARTEIIENT

LEG.318Izlo3 Le 3 août 1950.

Monsieur le Ministre,

Je suis chargé par le Secrétaire général d'accuser réceptionde votre
lettre no 34437-zo-VII du 14 juillet 1g50, transmettant aux fins de
dépôt, l'instrument d'adhésionavec réservesde la République populaire
de Bulgarie à la Convention pour la prévention et la répressiondu crime
de génocide.
Je suis également chargépar le Secrétaire généradle vous faire savoir
que cet instrument d'adhésion avec réserves nepeut êtrereçu, aux fins
de dé~ôt,qu'à la condition de ne pas soulever d'objections de la part

d'un Etat quelconque qui a déjà ratifié la convention ou qui y a déjà
adhéré oud'un Etat quelconque susceptible de ratifier la convention ou
d'y adhérer avant la date à laquelle les vingt premiers instruments de
ratification oud'adhbsion auront étédéposés.
:\cet C~nrd,jsai l'honneur de vous inire sunn:iitre qu'en application
$eI'artirlr XVll a) dei:! convention. le Secrét:<ic;nçral n transmis niix
Etnts .\lcmbrcs et :ii,I<tnts iioii ineiiihcliiunt ratifiéia con\.c.ntioii

' Notification sent to States whieh had already ratioreacceded.-Letter
dated August 3rd. ~ggowhich is mr<lnfis$nufandis the same as Annexed Docu-
ment No. 12.iqot reproduced.
Lettre en date du 3 août 1950,dont le texte est muLafis mrifandis le mCme
que celui du document annexC no 37. Non reproduite. WRITTEN STATEZIENT OF THE U.N.-ANNEXES
13s
ou qui y ont adhéré unecopie certifiée conforme dudit instrument
d'adhésioiiavec réserves, en priant ces Etats de bien vouloir lui faire
connaître, dans le délai le plus proche, leur attitude à l'égardde ces
. réserves, et cri Ics iiiformant qu'à moins d'avoir reçu notifidation de
leurs objectioiis auxdites réserves avant le jour oii les vingt premiers

instruments de ratification ou d'adhésion auront 6th dCposés,il considé-
rera qu'ils acceptent ces réserves.
Conforméiiieiit à l'article XVII a) de la convention, le Secrétaire
générala égalementtransmis une copie certifiée conforme dudit instru-
ment d'adhésion avec réserves à tous les autres Membres des Nations
Unies et aux Etats non membres invités par l'Assembléegénérale à
devenir parties à laconventioii.
Vous trouverez ci-joint, pour votre information, copie de chacune de
ces deux lettres.
Je vous prie d'agréer, etc.

(Signé) A. H. FELLER.
Conseillergénéralet Directeur principal,
Département juridique.

Annexed Document No. 46

CONVENTION OF 9 DECEMBER ,g&, ON THE I'REVENTION AND
I'UIIISHMENT OF THE CRIhIE OF GENOCIDE

Accession williReseruationsby Kaniania '

Annexed Document No. 47

RESERVATIONS OF RObIANIA
[Translateil /rom French]

As regards Article IX :The People's Kepuhlic of Romnnia does not
consider itself bound hy the provisions of Article IX, wliicli provides
that disputes between the Contracting I'arties relatiog to the inter-
pretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention sliall be submitted
to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties
to the dispute, and declares that as regards the jurisdiction of the Court
in disputes relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the
Convention, the People's Republic of Romania will adhere to the view
which it has held up to the present, that in each particular case the

agreement of al1 the parties to a dispute is required before it can be
referred to the International Court of Justice forsettlement.
As regards Article XII : The People's Republic of Romania declares
that it is not iii agreement with Article XII of the Convention, and

1Letter dnted November ~1st. 1950,which is nrittainititandis thçame as
Annexed Document No. 6. Not reproduced. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.N.-ANNEXES
I39
considers that al1the provisions of the Convention should apply to the
non-self-governing territories, includiug the trust territories.

Annexed Document No. 48

C.N.I~I.I~~O.TREATIES

CONVENTION DU g DÉCEMBRE 1948 POUR LA PR~VENTION
ET LA REPRESSION DU CRIME DE GÉNOCIDE

Adhésionde la Rouma?zieavec réserves

Annexed Document No. 49

R~ÇERVES DE LA ROUMANIE
[Traduction fournie par le Gouvernementde la Roumanie]

En ce gui concerne l'articleI,Y: La République populaire roumaine
considére comme non obligatoires pour elle les dispositions de l'article
qui stipule que les différendsentre les parties contractantes relatifs à
l'interprétation. l'application ou l'exécution de la présente convention

seront soumis à l'examen dela Cour internationalede Justice àla requête
de toute partie au différend,et déclarequ'en ce qui concerne la coinpé-
tence de la Cour en mati&re de différends relatifs à l'interprétation.
l'application et l'exécution de la convention, la République populaire
roumaine restera dans le futur, comme elle l'a fait jusqu'à prtsent, sur
la position que, dans chaque casparticulier, l'accord de toutes les parties
au différend est nécessaire pourque tel ou tel différend puisseêtretrans-
mis à la Cour internationale de Justiceaux fins de solution.

En cegui concernel'article XII : La République populaire roumaine
déclare qu'elle n'est pas d'accord avecl'article XII de la convention et
estime que toutes les stipulations de la convention doivent s'appliquer
aux territoires non autonomes, y compris les territoires sous tutelle.

Copie certifiée conforme :
(Signé) 1.S. KERNO,

Secrétaire généraladjoint,
Département juridique.

Lettre datée du21 novembre 1950, dont letcxte estmzrfafis mrrfandis le
méme que celui du document annexéno g.Non reproduite.
10I4O WRITTENSTATEblENTOF THE U.F.-ASSEXES

Annexed Document No. 50

c.N.191 a.195o.TREATIES

CONVENTION OF 9 DECEMBER 1,948, ox THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISIIMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE

Accession with Reservations by Romania '

Annexed Document No. 51

c.N.191 a.195o.TREATIES

CONVENTION DU g DÉCEMBRE 1948 POUR LA PRÉVENTION

ET LA RÉPRESSION DU CRIME DE GÉNOCIDE
Adlzésioiide la Rorimanie, avec rkseruesa

--

Annexed Document No. 52

C.N.I~~.I~~O.TREATIES

CONVENTION OF 9 DECI~MBEK 1, 48,ON THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE

Accession with Reservations by Poland

Annexed Document No. 53

INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION
[English translation]

In the name of the Polish Republic,

BOLESLAW BIERUT,

President of the Polish Republic,
to ailmen who may see these presents :be it known that :

A Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on
g December, 1948.
--
' Notification sent to States which had already ratoriacceded.-Lctter
dated Novembrr zrçt, ig5o. which isr>tt<larnulondirthe same as Annexed
Document Xo. 12.Sot reproduced.
Lettre en date du1 novembre 1950, dont letexte estfnulatismuta?tdle
mème que celui du document annexe no 37.Son reproduite.
3 Letter dated Sovembcr zgth, 1950. which ifnutolirmirtandthe same as
:\nnexed Document So. 6. Sot reproduced. WRITTENSTATEAIENT'OF THE U.N.-ANNEXES 141

Having read and esamined the said Convention, we accede to it in the
name of the Polish Republic, subject to the follomingreservations :

"As regards Article IX :
Poland does not regard itself as bound by the provisions of this
articlesince the agrecmcnt of al1 the parties to a disprite is a
necessary condition in cach specificcase for submission tothe Inter-
national Court of Justice,

As regards Article XII:

Poland does not accept the provisions of this article, coiisidering
that the convention should apply to non-self-governing territories,
including trust territories."
\Ire declare that the above-mentioiied convention is'acceptecl, ratified
and confirmed and promise that it shall be observed \\+thout violation.

In faith wh&eof, MreIiavc issucd the present letteis bearing the seal
of the Republic.

Given at Warsaw, 22 September, 1950.

(Signed) J. CYRANKIEWICZ, (Signed) BOI.ESLAW BIBRUT.
President of the Council ST. SKRZESZEWSKI,
of Ministers. Miiiister for Foreign Affairs.

Annexed Document No.54

C.N.I~~.I~~~.TREATIES

CONVENTION DU 9 DÉCEMBRE 1948 POUR LA PRÉVENTION
ET LA RÉPRESSION DU CRIME DE GÉNOCIDE '

Adhésionavec résemespar la Pologne '

' Lettre en date du29 novembre 1950, dont le texte est mrifatis nztrfandis le
m&me que celui dii documeiit anncxCno g.Non reproduite.142 WRITTEN, STATElIENT OF THE U.N.-ANNEXES

Annexed Document No. 55

INSTRUMENT D'ADHÉSION

Au nom de la République de Pologne.
BOLE~LAW UIERUT,

Président de la République de Pologne,
à tous ceux qui ces présentes lettres verront,
fait savoir ce qui sui:

Une Convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de
génocide a étéadoptée par l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies le
Q décembre 1948.
Aprèsavoir vu et examinéladite convention, Nous y adhéronsau nom
de la Républiquede Pologne avec les réservessuivantes: ,

En ce qui concerne l'article IX, la Pologne ne s'estime pas tenue
par les dispositions de cet article, considérant que l'accord de toutes
les parties au différend constitue dans chaque cas particulier une
condition nécessairepour saisir la Cour internationalede Justice.
1311ce qui concerne l'article XII, la Pologne n'accepte pas les
dispositions de cet article, considérant que la convention devrait
s'appliquer aux territoires non autonomes, y compris les territoires
sous tutelle.

Nous déclaronsque la convention susmcntionnée est acceptée,ratifife
et confirméeet promettons qu'elle sera inviolablement observée.
En foi de quoi Nous avons délivréles Présentes Lettresrevêtucsdu
sceau de la République.

Donné à Varsovie, le22 septembre 1950.

(SignéJ). CYRANKIEWICZ, (Signé BOLESLAW BIERUT.
Président du Conseil ST. SKRZESZEWSKI,
des Ministres. pour Ministre des Affaires
étrangères.

Copie certifiée conforme
(Signé 1. S. KERNO,
Secrétaire généraladjoint,
Departement juridique. WRITTEN ST.ATE>lEST OF THE U.S.-ANNEXES I43

Annexed Document No. 56

C.N.196 u.I~~o.TIIEATIES

CONVENTION 01' 9 I>ECI!MHER 1,948,ON THli I'IIEVENTION AND
I'UNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GIINOCIDE

Accession with Reservations by Polur~d'

Annexed Document No. 57

C.X.196B.IQ~o.TREATIES

CONVENTION DU g DÉCEMBRE 1948 POUI< I.A I'REVENTION

ET LA IIÉPIIESSIONDU CRIME DE G~~NOC~DB
AdhLsion avec réseruespar la Pologizes

Annexed Document No. 57a

THE ASSIST:\NT SECRETARY-GENER AOL THE PER>lANENT
REPKESENTI\TI\'E OF POLASD TO THE UNITED NATIONS

LEG.~IS/Z/O~ 7 December, ~gjo.

Sir,

1 am directed by the Secretary-General to acknowledge the receipt
of your letter No. I./zo38/jo/4zzz of 13 November, 1950, transmitting
the instrument of accessioii by the Government of the Republic of
Poland to the Corivcrition on the Prevention and I'uiiishment of the
Crime of Genocide, with reservations relating to its Articles IX and XII.
1 have the honour to inform you that this instrument of accession

was received on 14 Xovember, xgjo, and that al1the intcrested govern-
ments are being iiotified accordingly, in the maniier required by the
final paragraph of the Resolution on reservations to mriltilateral con-
ventions adopted by the General Assembly on 16 November, ~gjo.
1 have, etc.
(Signed) IVANKERNO,

Assistant Secretary-General,
Legal Department.

Notification sent to States which halrï;dyrtitifior ncceded.-Letter
cfatedDecember 15th. rgjo,which is nziifafis >ntil~indisthe samï as Annexed
Document No. 12.Sot reproduced.
Lettre en date dix 18 décemb~gjo. dont le texte est rnillafis mrifnndis le
meme que celui du documcnt annexi. n'37. Non reproduite.1.14 WRII'TENSTATEIIENT OF 'THEU.N.-ANNEXES

Annexed Document No. 58

C.N.zoq.1g5o.TREATIES

CONVENTION OF 9 DECEMDER 1,948,ON THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE

Ratification by Czechoslouakia'

12 January, 1951
Sir,
1am directed bythe Secretary-General to inform you that the instru-

ment of ratification of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide by Czechoslovakia was received on 21 Decem-
ber, 1950. This instrument of ratification maintains the reservations
relating to Articles IX and XII made at the time of signature by the
representative of Czechoslovakia and announced in letter C.N.180.1949.
TKEATIES of 30 December, 1949.
Rcplics froni the Governments of Guatemala (C.N.xr3.1g50 and
C.N.131.1950), Ecuador (LEG.318/z/o3 of 5 May, 1950). Australia
(c.N.17o.1950 and C.N.1g7.1950).El Salvador (C.N.188.1950)and Viet
Nam (C.N.rgg.rgjo), however, expressed disagreement with, or objec-
tion to, the afore-mentioned reservations.
Accordingly, pursuant to paragraph three of the Resolution on reser-
vations to multilateral con\~entions, adopted by the General Assembly
at its 305th plenary meeting on 16 November, 1950, notification is
Iiereby made of the receipt of theabove-mentioned instrument, without
prejudice to its legal effect, pending the decision, contemplated by that
Kesolution, of the General Assembly at its sixth session.
1 have, etc.

(Signed) 1.S. KERNO,
Assistant Secretary-General.
Legal Department.

Annexed Document No. 59

CONVENTION DU g DÉCEMBRE 1948 POUR LA PRÉVENTION
ET LA RÉPRESSION DU CRIME DE GÉXOCIDE

Ratificatioit par la Tchécoslovaquie~

Le 12 janvier, 1951.

Je suis chargépar le SecrétairegénEralde porter à votre connaissance
--'il a reçu, le21 décembre 1950, l'instrument par lequel le Gouverne-
' 'Jotification sent, in English or in French. to al1 governments invited to sign
or accede to thc Convention.
Notification faite. en françaenanglais, à tous les gouvernements invités
à signer la convention oà y adldrrr. WRITTEN STATEYEXTOF THE U.X.-ANNEXES I45

ment' de la République tchécoslovaque ratifie la Convention pour la
prévention et la répression du crime de génocide. Cetinstrument de
ratification maintient les réserves relatives aux articles IX et XII,
formulées,lors de la signature, par le représentant de la Tchécoslovaquie
et dont il est fait état dans la lettre C.N.ISO.IQ~Q>.>EATIES du
30 décembre 1949.
Dans les réponses qu'ils ont fait parvenir au Secrétaire général, les
Gouvernements du Guatcmala (C.N.113.1gjo et C.N.13r.1gjo). de
l'Équateur (LEG.318/z/o3, du j mai ~gjo), de 1'Australie (C.N.170.1950
et C.N.rg7.1gjo). du Salvador (C.N.188.1gjo) et du Viet-Nam (C.N.
~gj.~gjo), ont indiqué qu'ilsn'étaient pas d'accord avec les réservesen
question ou qu'ils formulaient des objectionà leur égard.
Dans cesconditions, et conformémentaux dispositions du paragraphe 3
de la Résolution relative aux réserves aux conventions multilatérales
adoptée par l'Assembléegénérale à sa 3ojmcséancepléni6re.le 16novem-
bre ~gjo, la présente communication a pour objet de vous aviser de la
réception de.l'instrument susmentionné, sans préjudice de son effet
juridique, en attendant que l'Assembléegénéraleadopte, lors de sa
sixikme session, la décisionque prévoit cette résolution.
Je vous prie d'agréer, etc.

(Signé1) . S. KERNO,
Secrétaire généraladjoint,
Département juridique.

--

Annexed Document No. 60

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY-GENERAL TO THE ACTING PERMANENT
REPRESENTATIVE OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA TO THE UNITED NATIONS

LEG.31SIzIo3

12 January, 1951.
Sir,
1 am directed by the Secretary-General to acknowledge the receipt
of your letter No. 2124-50 of 19 December, 1950, submitting the instm-
ment of ratification by the Government of Czechoslovakia of the Conven-
tion on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
1 have the honour to refer to iny letters LEG.318/z/o3 ofj May 1950.
C.N.II~.I~~O. C.N.131.1gjo. C.N.170.1gj0, C.N.188.1gj0, C.N.xg5.1g50
and C.N.1g7.1gjo communicating to you copies of the letters from the

Nam, expressing disagreement with, or objection to, the reservations

made at the time of signature by the Representative of Czechoslovaliia,
mention of which is also made in the instmment of ratification.
Pursuant to the Resolution on reservations to multilateral conven-
tions, adopted by the Gencral Assembly at its 305th plcnary meeting on
16 November, xgjo, the Secretary-General is accordingly giving notice
to al1iuterested States of the receipt of the above-mentioncd instrument,14~ \VRITTES SThTEYEX'I OF THE U.S.-:\SSEXES
without prejiidice to its legal effect, peiiding the decision, contemplated
by that Resolution, of the General Assembly at its sixth session.

1 Bave, etc.
(Signed) IVANI<ERNO,
Assistant Secretary-General,
Legal Department.

PART THR1313.-IN\'IT.YrIOXS TO XON-MEMUER STATES TO
BECOhII11P 3ARTIES, CONTAINIKG NO'I'LFICATIOXSOF
RESERVATIONS

Annexed Document No. 61

THE ASSISTAST SECRICTARY-GENERAL TO THE I\CTING bllSlSTEll FOI<
FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE UNITED STATES OP INII~NESI:\

LEG.318/2/03
27 March, ïgjo.
Sir,
In Kcsolutioii 260 (111)A and C, copy of wliich is cnclosed herein,
adopted on 9 December, 1948, the General Assembly approved the
Convention on tlie I'revention and Punishmeiit of tlie Crime of Geriocide
and proposed it for signature and ratification or accession in accordance
wvithArticle XI of the Convention.
Under the provisions of the aforesaid Article XI, the Convention
waç open until 31 December, 1949. for signature and since IJanuary,

1950, is open for accession on behalf of any 3Iember of the United
Nations and of aiiy non-member State to which ail invitation to sign
has been addressed by the General Assembly.
In the course of the fourth regular session nt ils 265th meeting on
3 December, 1949. tlie General Assembly adopted the following
resolutioi:
" Invitatioijs 10 be addressed 10 +ion-memberStates to become
partiesto thc Coizventionon the Prevention nitd Pnnishment of the
Crime of Genocide

Tlie Ge~teralAssenzbly,
Consideringthat Article SI of the Convention oii the Prevention
and Piinishment of the Crime of Geiiocide, approved by General
Assembly liesolutioii 260 (III) A of 9 December, 1948, provides,
iizter nlin,tliat the Convention shall be opeii to signature and
ratificatioii or to accession on behalf of any non-member State
to which an invitation has been addressed by the General Assembly,

Considering that it is desirable to send invitations to those
non-membcr States which, by their participation in activities
related to the United Nations, have cxprcssed a desire to advance
international co-opcration,

I. Decides to request the Secretary-General to despatch the
invitations nbove mcritioned to cacli noii-mcmber State which WRITTEN STi\TElfENT OF THE U.K.-ASKEXIES *47

is or Iiereafter becomes an active Member of one or more of the
specialized ageiicies of the United Nations, or whicli is or hereafter
becomes a party to the Statute of the International Court of
Justice ;
2.Kemnins coi~vi?~ce df the necessity of inviting Rfembers of
the United Xations wliich have not yet done sa to sign or ratify
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide as soon as possible."

Accordingly, 1 have the horiour to address to your Government an
invitation to accede to the Convcntion on the Preveiitiori and Puoish-
ment of the Crime of Genocide. In pursuance of its Article XVIII
1 have also the hoiiour to transmit to you a certified copy of the
Convention showing al1 signatures affised to the Convention up ta
14December. 1948. Since that date the following States have signed
the Convcntion :
Honduras 22April 1949 Iran SIlec. 1949
El Salvador 27April 1949 l3elgium rzIlec. 1949
Iceland 14May 1949 U.S.S.lZ. 16Ilec. 1g4g*
Guatemala 22 June 1949 13yelorussianS.S.l<. 16Dec. 194g*
Chiiia 20 July 1949 Ukrainian S.S.li. 16Ilcc. 194g*
Colombia 12 August 1949 Cuba zSIlec. 1949
Israel 17August 1949 Czechoslovakia 28Dec. 1g41)*
Denmark zSSept. 1949 Greece 29Ilec. 1949
New Zealand 25Nov. 1949 Uurma 30Dcc. 1949
Canada zSNov. 1949 Lebanon 30 Ilec. 1949
India 29Nov. 1949 Sweden 30 Dec. 1949

çiicloççcertifiecl truc copies.rticleIS and XII, as mçntioned in the

1 wish furthennore to infom you that the following States have
deposited instruments of ratificatioii of the Conventioii on the dates
indicated below :

Ethiopia IJuly 1949 Eciiador 21 Ilecember 1949
Australin SJiily 1949 l'anama II January 1950
Norway 22 July 1949 Guatemala 13Jaiiuary 1950
Icelaiid 29August 1949 Israel 9 alarch 1950
and that by riotification received on 8 July, 1949,the Goveriiment
of Australia estcnded the application of the Convention to al1territories
for the conduct of whose foreign relations Australia is responsible.
1 will not fail in the future to adtlress to you al1notifications provided
for in Article SVII.
1 have, etc.
For the Secretary-General:
(Sip~ed) IVANKERPIO,

Assistant Secretary-General,
Legal Departmeiit.14~ \VRITTEX STATEhIENT OF THE U.X.-AIINEXES

APPENDICES TO ANNEXED DOCUMliNT NO. 61

Resolution 260 (III) A, adopted by the General Assembly at its
179th plenary meeting, on g December, 1945.

Adoption of the Convention on the Pre-uentionand Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide,atzd text of the Convention

The General Assembly
Approves the annexed Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide and proposes it for signature and ratification

or accession in accordance with its Article XI.

* *

Resolution 260 (III) C, adopted by the General Assembly at its
179th plenary meeting, on g December, 1948.

Application with respect todepende~ztterrilories,of the Conventionon the
Prevention a+rdI'z~nishmentof the Crime of Genocide

The General Assembly recoinmends that Parties to the Convention
on the Prevention and Puiiishment of the Crime of Genocide which
administer dependent territories should take such measures as are
necessary and feasible to enable the provisions of the Convention to be
extended to those territories as soon as possible.

Annexed Document No. 62

LE SECRÉTAIIE GÉNÉRAL '\DIOINT AU CHEF DU GOUVERNEllENT DE LA
PRINCIPAUTÉ DU LIECHTENSTEIN

LEG.318/2/03
Le IO avril 1950.
Monsieur le Ministre,
Dans les parties A et C de la Résolution 260 (III) qu'elle a adoptée
le g décembre 1948, parties dont vous trouverez copie ci-joint, I'Assem-
bléegénérale aapprouvé le texte de la Convention pour la prévention
et la répressiondu crime de sgénocide a et a soumis cette convention
à la signature et à la ratification oà l'adhésionconformément à l'ar-
ticle XI de la convention.
Aux termes de l'article XI, la'convention était ouverte jusqu'au
31décembre1949 à lasignature et, depuisl1- janvier 1950,àl'adhésion,
TU nom de tout Membre de l'organisation des Nations Unies et de tout
Etat non membre à qui l'Assembléegénéraleaura adresséune invitation
à cet effet.
Au cours de la qnatrikme session ordinaire, à sa 265meséance,tenue
le 3 décembre1949.l'Assembléegénérale aadoptéle résolutionsuivante : WRITTES STATE3lEST OF THE U.'i.-ASSEXES
I49
a I~zuitationaiex États nott membresà devenirparties à la Con-
uentiol@OILI1a préue~ilionet la répressioizdu crime dergénocide»

L'Assemblée générale,
Considérant que l'article XI de la Convention pour la prévention
et la répression du crime de génocide, approuvée par l'Assemblée
, générale ledécembre1948(Résolution 260 (III) A), porte iiotam-
ment que la convention sera ouverte à la signature et ratification
ou àl'adhésionau nom de tout État non membre à qui l'Assemblée
généraleaura adresséune invitation à cet effet,

Considérantqu'il est souhaitable que des invitations soient
adressées aux États non membres qui ont manifesté, en prenant
part aux activités qui se rapportent aux Nations Unies, le désir
de développer la coopération internationale,
1. Décided'invite; le Secrétaire généralà envoyer l'invitation
précitéeà tous les Etats non membres de l'organisation qui sont
ou qui deviendront Membres actifs d'une ou plusieurs institutions
spécialiséesdes Nations Uiiies ou qui sont ou deviendront parties
au Statut de la Cour internationale de Justic;et

2. Demeureconuainczcd ee la nécessitéd'inviter les États Membres
des Xations Unies qui n'ont pas encore signé ouratifié la Conven-
tion pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocideà le
faire le plus tôt possible.
En conséquence, j'ai l'honneur d'inviter votre Gouvernement à
adhérer à la Convention pour la prévention et la répressiondu crime de
R génocide n.Conformément à l'article 'SV111 de la coiiventioii, j'ai
également l'honneur de vous adresser une copie certifiée conforme
indiquant toutes les sigiiatures quiy étaient apposées à la date du
14décembre 1948. Depuis cette date, ont signéla convention les Etats
dont le nom suit :

Honduras 22 avril 1949Iran 8 déc. 1949
Salvador 27avril 1949Belgique 12 déc. 1949
Islande 14mni 1949U. K. S. S. 16 [Iéc.1949'
Guatemala 22 juin 1949R. S. S.de Biélorussie 16cléc.1949~
Cliine 20 juillet 1949R. S. S. d'Ukraine 16déc. 1949*
Colombie 12 aoîit 1949Cuba 26déc. 1949
Israël 17août 1949Tchécoslovaquie 26déc. 1g4g*
Danemark 28sept. 1949Grèce 29déc. 1949
Nouvelle-Zélande 25nov. 1949Birmanie 30 déc. 1949
Canada 28nov. 1949Liban 30 déc. 1949
Inde 29nov. 1949Suède 30 déc. 1949
* .Avec réseren ce quiconcerne les articles IXXII (voicopies certifiees
conformesci-jointes).

J'ai en outre l'honneur de vous faire connaître que lesÉtats suivants
ont déposé,aux dates indiquées ci-dessous, les instruments de ratifica-
tion de la convention :
' Éthiopie 1cr juillet 1949 Équateur 21 décembre 1949
Australie 8 juillet 1949 Panama II janvier 19jo
Norvège 22 juillet 1949 Guatemala 13janvier 1950
Islande zg août 1949 Israël g mars 1950I5" \YRITTBS STATEAIEST OF THE U.S.-ASSEXES

et que par notification parvenue au Secrétaire généralle 18 juillet 1949,
le Gouvernement australien a étendu l'application de la convention à
tous les territoires dont l'Australie dirige les relatioris extérieures.
D'autre part, iilonaco a déposé,le 30 mars 1950, un instrument
d'adhésion à la Convention pour la prévention et la répressiondu crime
de génocide.
Je ne manquerai pas de vous communiquer à l'avenir toutes les
notifications énumérées à l'article XVII.
Je vous pric d'agréer, etc.
Pour le Secrétaire général:

(Signé) IVANKERNO,
Secrétaire généraladjoint,
Département juridique.

Résolution260 (111) A, adoptéepar l'Assemblée générale, lge décembre
1948, à sa 179nlcséance plénière.

Adoption de la Coimentionpour la préveiztioizet lu répressiondu crime
de génocideet texte de la coizvent!on

L'Assembléeggéirérale
Approrrve le texte ci-annexé de la Convention pour la prévention
et la répression du crime de génocide et soumet cette convention à
la signature et à la ratification ou à l'adhésion conformément à
l'article SI de la convention.

Ré1948,iànsa 179"" séance plénière.'Assembléeg&iiéralel,e g décembre

Application aux territoires non autonom~s de la Couveiztioizpour la
préventionet la répressiondu crime de génocide

L'Assentblée géi~érale recommande aux parties de la Convention
pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocidequi adminis-
trent des territoires dépendants, de prendre les mesures nécessaires
et possibles pour que les dispositions de la convention puissent être
étendues à ces territoires dans le plus bref délai. Annexed Document No. 63

LEG.318Izlo3

LETTRES ADRESSÉES, LE 31 MAI 1950,
PAR LE SECRETAIRE GÉNÉRAL ADJOINT AUX GOUVERNEMENTS

DU VIET-NAM, DU CAMBODGE ET DU LAOS'

Annexed Document No. 64

LEG.318/2/03

LETTER ADDRESSED, ON DECEhIBER 20th, IgjO,
BY THE SECRETARY-GENEL<AL TO THE CHANCELLOR
OF THE FEDERAL IIEPUHLIC OF GERAIANY a

' Le texte deceslettresest mi<tolis mutandlemème que celui du document
anncxé n' 62. Xon reproduit.
Mulotir r>tuta>tsame lettcas Annexed Document Xo. 61.Xot reproduced.I52 WRITTESSTATEXENTOF THE U.N.-ANNEXES

PART FOUR.-CORRESPONDENCE
CONCERNIKG EXPRESSION BY GOVERNMENTS
017 DISAGREEMENT \VITH, OR OBJECTION TO,

THE FORIZGOING IIESEIIVATIONS

Annexed Document No. 65

ClllCULAK NOTE '

lXG.318/2/03
j May, 1950
Sir,
1 have been requested by the Secretary-General to inform you tliat
iii reply to my letters C.N.17oa. c.N.171 a, C.N.r7za, C.K.xSoa, concern-
ing the signature, with reservations, of the Convention of g Uecember,
1048, for tlie I'revention and Punishmeiit of the Crime of Genocide by
the reprcsentatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, tlic
Uyelorussian Soviet Socialist Kepublic, the Ukraiiiian Soviet Socialist
Republic and Czechoslovakia, he has received from the Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Ecuador a communication (secAnnex I), to which he
replied on zr hlarch, 1950 (see Annex II). The Rlinister for Forcign
Affairs of Ecuador, in reply to this latter communication, has now serit
the Secretary-General a letter dated 31 March, ~gjo (see Annex III).

1 have, etc.
(Signed) IVANKERNO,
Assistant Secretary-General,
Legal Department.

Annexed Document No. 66

The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Eccrador to the Secretary-General

[îratzshfed /rom S#anish]
No. 56
Quito, IO February, 1950.
Sir,

With refcrencc to notes Nos. C.N.17oa. c.N.171 a, c.N.172 a and
C.N.xBoa, signed by Mr. Ivan Kerno, Assistant Secretary-General in
charge of the Legal Department. and dated 30 December, 1949, 1 have
the honour to inform you that the Government of Ecuador lias duly

Sent.in English or in Frenchto al1States invited to sornaccede tothe
Convention. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.N.-ANNEXES 153

noted that tlie Miiiisters for Foreign Affairs of the Unioii of Soviet
Socialist Republics, of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and
of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic aiid the Ambassador of
Czechoslovakia to the United States of Americn have signed, on
tion and l'unisli&ent of tlie Crime of Genocide as recorded in theeven-
firocès-uerbauxdated, in the case of the three countries first nientioned,
16 December, 1949, and, in the case of tlie country 1st mentioned,
28 December, 1949.

2. 1 wish to thank you for having transmitted to me the above-
mentioned procès-verbaux,in accordance with Article SI11 of the
Convention, informing me of the reservations made by the Govern-
ments concerned with regard to Articles 1S and XII of the Convention.
3. 1 note that, in conformity with interiiationd practice and tlie
decision of the Sixth International Conference of American States in
Havana, it is provided in Article SI of the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide that the Convention shall be
open until 31 December, 1949. for signature by any AIember of the
United Nations and any non-member States to which an invitation to
sign has been addressed by the General Assembly.

4. The Government of Ecuador. in accordaiice with tlie nosition
~)rtxioiislyiii;iiiit;iineclrr.gar(lirigrescr\.citioiij, lias no o1)jectiuiitu m:ike
rr.~nr<liiigtlie subinijsioii of sucli rescr\.;itiuns but expresses -ls rlis;icrcc-
mënt wich theircontent.
I have, etc.
(Signed) L. NEFTALI PONCE,
Minister for Foreign Affairs. '

* 1 1

Annexed Document No. 67

Annez II

The Assistant Secretary-Generalto the.Miitister for Foreign
Affairs of Eczcador
LEG.~IS/Z/O~/AL
21 March, 1950.
Sir,

1 am directed by the Secretary-General to acknowledge the receipt
of your letter No. 56 of IO I'ebruary, 1950. which refers to my letters
Nos. C.N.170a, c.N.171 a,C.hT.172a and 180a concerning the sigiiatures
with reservations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of tlie Crime of Genocide by the representatives of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, of the
I3yelomssian Soviet Socialist liepublic and of Czechoslo\,akia.
Your letter States that the Government of Ecuador has no objection
to make conccrning the submission ot tlie reservations by the aforesaià
States as contained in the procès-uerbauxc ,opies of which were aniiexed
to my previous letters, and. at the same time. expresses disagreement
with the conteiit of tliese reservations.I54 WRITTESSTATEllEST OF THE U.N.-ASSIiXES

As the statement does not seem to indicate clearly the intention of
your Government, it will be appreciated if Your Excellency would be
afore-mentioned reservat'1011s.r it may be taken as accej,ting tlic
1 have, etc.

(Signed) IVANKERNO,
Assistant Secretary-Gcncral,
Legal Department.
*
* *

Annexed Document No. 68

Annex III
The Mirlister for Foreigii Alfairs of Ecz~adorto the Secrelary-Genernl

[Translnted front Spaiiishj
No. 10;

Quito, 31 Marcli, 1950.
Sir,
With reference to note No. 31S/z/o3/AL of 21 March last, sigiicd by
llr. Ivan Kcriio, Assistant Secretary-General in charge of tlie Legal
Departmelit, in whicli. the Government of Ecuador was requestcd to
clarify the official vicw cxpressed in note No. $DAO of IO ITebruary
last, concerning the rescrvations made by the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, the Ukrainian Sovict Socialist Republic, the Ryclorussian
Soviet Socialist Republic and Czechoslovakia to thc Convention on the
lJrevention and Puiiishmeiit of tlie Crime of Genocide, 1have the honour
to inform you tliat the Governmcnt of Ecuador is not in agreement with
these reservations and tliat therefore they do not apply to Ecuador,
which accepted without any modification the complete text of the
Convention in question.
1 have, etc.
(Sig~zed) L. NEFTALIPOPICE,
Alinister of Foreign Affairs.

Annexed Document No. 69

NOTE CIRCULAIRE '

LEG.~IS/Z/O~
Le 5 mai 1950.
Je suis chargé par le Secrétaire généralde vous informer qu'eu
réponse àmeslettres C.N.170 a, C.N.171 a, c.N.172 a, C.N.ISOU,relatives
à la signature, avec réserves, de la Convention du I)décembre 1948
pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide, par les
représentants de l'Union des Républiques socialistes soviétiques, la
--
Envoyée ,nfrançais ou en anglaiàtous IcÉtats invites Asignelaconven-
tion ou Av adhdrer. ~~RITTEN STATEMENT OF THE u.x.-ASNEXES
155
République socialiste soviétique de Byélorussie,la République socialiste
soviétique d'Ukraine et la Tch'écoslovaquie,il a reçu, du ministre
des Relations extérieures de l'Équateur, une communication (voir
annexe 1). à laquelle ia étérépondu par lettre en date du 21 mars
1950 (voir annexe II). Le ministre des Relations extérieures de I'Équa-
teur, en réponse à cette dernière communication, a fait alors parvenir
au Secrétaire général unelettredatée du 31 mars 1950 (voirannexe III).
Veuillez agréer, etc.
(Signé) Iv~s KERSO,
Secrétaire généraladjoint,
Département juridique

Annexed Document No. 70

Annexe I

Le ministre des Relations extérieirresde l'Éqzrateuran Secrétairegénéral

No +DAO
fiaduit de l'espagi~ol] Quito, le IO février 1950.

Monsieur le Secrétaire général,
Comme suite aux notes C.N.17oa, C.N.171 a,C.N.172a et c.N.180 a
du 30 dfcembre 1949. signéesde M. Ivan Kerno, Secrétaire gbnéral
adjoint chargé du Département juridique, j'ai I'honneuy de faire
connaître à Votre Excellence que le Gouvernement de l'bquateur a
pris bonne note du fait que le ministre des Affaires étrangAres de
l'Union des Républiques socialistes soviétiques, celui de la Képubliquc
socialiste soviétique de Biélorussie, celui de la République socialiste
soviétique d'Ukraine et l'ambassadeur de Tchécoslovaquie aux États-
Unis d'Amériqueont signé,au nom de leurs Gouvernements respectifs,
la Convention pour la prévention et la répressiondu crime de génocide.
comme en font foi les procès-verbaux datés du 16 décembre I1)4g,
en ce qui concerne les trois premiers de ces pays, et du zS du même
mois, en ce qui concerne le dernier d'entre eux.

2. Je suis très reconnaissantà Votre Excellence d'avoir bien voulu,
coriformément à l'article XII1 de la convention, m'adresser copie des
procès-verbaux mentionnés plus haut, par lesquels j'ai étéinformé
des réserves formuléespar ces Gouvernements au sujet des articles IS
et XII de l'instrument en question.
3. Je prends bonne note du fait que, conformément à la pratique
internationale et aux décisions de la SixièmeConférencepanaméricaine
de La Havane, l'article SI de la Convention pour la prévention et la
répressiondu crime de génocide disposeque cet instrument sera ouvert,
jusqu'au 31 décembre 1949, à la signature de tout État Membre de
l'Organisation des Xations Unies et de tout État non membre à qui
l'Assembléegénéraleaura adressé une invitation à cet efiet. WRITTEN STATE~IENT OF THE u.N.-ANNEXES
156
4. Le Gouvernement de l'Equateur, conformémeiit au principe qu'il
a déjàprofessé enmatière de réserves, déclare qu'il n'apas d'objection
à élever contre le fait que ces réserves se sont fait jour mais qu'il
n'adhère pas aux idéesqu'elles expriment.
Je profite de cette occasion, etc.

(Sigmé) L. NEPTALP IONCE,
Ministre des Relations extérieures

Annexed Document No. 71

Le Secrétaireghziral adjoint au, ministre des Relations extérieuresde
1'Eqziatezrr

LEG.~IS/Z/O~/AL Le zr mars 1950.
Excellence,

J'ai l'honiieur, au nom du Secrétaire général, d'accuser réception
de votre lettre11"56, du IO février 1950, qui se réfèrà mes lettres
c.N.170 a, C.X.171a, C.N.172 a,et C.N.180 a relativesà la signature,
avec réserves, de laConvention pour la prévention et la répression
du crime de génocidepar les représentants de l'union des Républiques
socialistes soviétiques,de la République socialiste soviétique d'Ukraine,
de la République socialiste soviétique de Biélorussie et de la Tchéco-
slVous déclarezdans votre lettre que le Gouvernement de I'Equateur
n'a pas d'objectionà élever contre le fait que les Etats en question
aient fait des réserves comme en font foi les procès-verbaux dont
copie était jointeà mes lettres précédentes, mais vous déclarez que
le Gouvernement de l'Équateur n'adhère pas aux idéesqu'expriment
ces réserves.
Cette déclaration ne semblant pas indiquer clairement quelle est
l'intention de votre'Gouvernement, je serais très oblàgVotre Excel-
lence de bien vouloir me faire connaître si je puis considérer que votre
Gouvernement accepte les réserves mentionnées plushaut.
Je vous prie d'agréer, etc.

(.7ig+ IVA)NKERXO,
Secrétaire généraladjoint,
Ilépartement juridique.

* * * WRITTES STATEMEST OF THE U.S.-ASSEXES '57

Annexed Document No. 72

Annexe III

Le ministre des Kelatioits extériez~sel'Équatenr au Secuétaire général
No 105-DAO
[Traduit de l'espagnol]
Quito, le 31 mars 1950.
Monsieur le Secrétaire général,

En réponse à votre note II" 318/z/o3/AL, du 21 mars 1950, signée
de M. Ivan Kerno, Secrétaire généraladjoint chargé du D,épartement
juridique, note où vous demandiez au Gouvernement de I'Equateur de
bien vouloir préciser l'opinionofficielleexpriméedans sa note no56-DAO
du IO février 1950, relativement aux réserves formuléespar I'Union
des Républiques socialistes soviétiques, la République socialiste sovié-
tique d'Ukraine, la République socialiste soviétique de Biélorussie et
la Tchécoslovaquie à l'égardde la Convention pour la prévention et
la répression du crime de génocide, j'ai l'honneur de faire connaître
à Votre Excellence que le Gouvernement de I'Equateur n'adhkre pas
à ces réserves et que, par consequent, ces réserves ne sauraient être
valables en ce qui concerne 1'Equateur. qui a accepté sans aucune
modification le texte intégral de la convention en question.
Je profite de cette occasion, etc.
(Signé) L. NEFTALIPONCE,

Ministre des Relations estérieures.

Annexed Document No. 73

THE MISISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ECUADOR TO THE
SECRETARYGENER4L

[ïranslated /rom Spanish] No. 271-DA0 (3)
Quito, 16 August, 1950.
Mr. Secretary-Geiicral,
1 have the honour to ncknowledge to Your Excellency receipt of
communication No. C.N.118a. of the 3rd of the current month, by
which you inform this Ministry that the Government of Bulgaria has
confirmed its ratificatioii of the Convention of 9 December, 1948, on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, accepting
it with reservations to Article IX and to Article XII of that inter-
national instrument.
In reply, 1 have the honour to inform Your Excellency that the
Government of Ecuador is not in agreement nlth these reservations
and that therefore they do not apply to Ecuador, which accepted
without auy modification the complete text of the Convention in
question.
1 have, etc.
(Signed) L. NEFTALIPONCE,

Minister of Foreign Affairs.IjS \VRITTES STATEJ~EST OF THE u.s.-ASSEXES

Annexed Document No. 74

THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS TO THE UNITED NATIONS TO THE SECRETARY-GENERIL

[Trar~slated/rom Russiart]
2 March. 1950.
Sir,
1 am instructed by the Afinister of Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.K.
to acknowledge the receipt of the letter from Mr. 1. Kemo, Assistant
Secretary-General in charge of the Legal Department, reference
30. LEG.~IS/Z/OI/AL of 13 January, 1950, enclosing copy of a letter
to the Miiiistry of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union and have the
honour to inform you that the invitation in the annesed letter to
States \vliich have ratified the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to give their views on the reser-
vations made by the U.S.S.R. in signing the Convention, lies outside
the scope of the functions devolving upon the Secretary-General of
the United Xatioiis under Article XVII of the Convention on Genocide.
1 have, etc.
(Sigiied)Y. MALIK.

Annexed Document No. 75

THE SECRETARV-GENER TO LTHE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE USION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS TO THE UNITED NATIOSS

Sir,
1 have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Your Excellency's
letter ofz March, 1950, in which you informed me that the invitation
contained in the letters sent to the governments which have ratified
the Coriventioii on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide to express their attitude to the reservations which the Union

of Soviet Socialist Kepublics has made oii signing the Convention,
goes beyond the bounds of the functions assigned to the Secretary-
General of the United Nations by Article XVII of the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
1 have the honour to draw the atte~itioii of Your Escellency to
Article XII1 of the afore-mentioned Conventioii, which provides that
the Secretary-General should, on the day when the first tweuty instru-
ments of ratification or accession have been deposited, draw up a
procès-r'erbalnd transmit a copy of it to each Xlember of the United
Xations and to each of the non-member States contemplated in Article XI
of the Convention. The Convention would come into force on the
ninetieth dayfollowing the date of deposit of the twentieth instrument
of ratification or accession. According to accepted principles of inter-
national law,a reservation to a treaty made by a State may he valid
only if al1 the other parties to the treaty consent to it. It is for this
reason that 1 have found it iiecessary, in the performance of II?.. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.S.-ANSEXES
'59
functions under the said Convention, to ascertain the views of the
States which have ratified the Convention regard in^ the reservations
of your Government
1 have, etc.
(Siped) TRYGVELIE,

Secretary-General.

Annexed Document No. 76

THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOClllLIST
REPUBLICS TO THE UNITED NATIONS TO THE SECKETAKY-GENEKAL

[Transhted /rom Rccrsiurc]

No. 212 IO October, 19jo. .
Sir,

On the instructions of the hlinistry of Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R.
1 have the honour to make the following communication.
In my letter of 2 March, sgjo, 1 had already pointed out tliat iri
inviting the States signatories to the Convention on the Preventiori
and Punishment of Genocide to state their views regarding the reser-
vations made by the Government of the U.S.S.R. on signing that Con-
vention, the Secretary-General was going beyond the bounds of the
functions vested in him by Article XVII of the Convention.
As is evident from &Ir.Feiler's letter o2August, 19jo, the Secretary-
General, exceeding the powers vested in him, is not only continuing
to ask for tlic vicws of theStates sigiiatories to the Convention regarding
the reservations made hy the Goveriiment of the U.S.S.R., but has
declared that the "legal consequences" of the rejection of those reser-
vations by the other States signatories to the Conventiori "would be
that the Secretary-General would not be in a position to accept for
deposit instruments of ratification from the Governmeiits of the
U.S.S.R., the Ukrainian S.S.R. and Czechoslovakia".
In your letter LEG.318/2/03/AId an attempt is made to justify the
Secretary-General's actions in breach of the Convention oii Genocide
by a reference to "accepted principles of international law", according
to which, it is alleged, "a reservatioii to rrtreaty made ba State may
be valid only if al1 the other parties to the treaty conseiit to it".
These assertions are unfounded.
The powcrs of the Secretary-General, as depository, are defined
exclusively by the Convention ori Genocide, and the Secretary-General
is therefore not entitled to take any actions beyond those provided
for hy the Convention.
In addition, 1 have to point out that your allegation tliat a reser-
vation to a treaty made. hy a State may be valid oiily if al1 the other
parties to the treaty consent to it is incompatible with the principle
of the sovereigrity of States,and is tliercfore contrary tofundamental
principles of international law.
\Vith, etc.
(~ip,ie<l)1'.31.4~1~. 160 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE u.s.-ANNEXES

Annexed Document No. 77

C.N.II~.I~~O.TREATIES

COSVESTIOS OF 9 DECEMBER1,948, OS THE PREVENTlOS AND
PUNlSHhlEST OF THE CRIhIE OF GEXOCIDE
Ratification by Guatemala '

2 Au~us~, 1950.
Sir,
1 am directed by the Secretary-General to refer to the letters from

the Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Legal Department,
c.N.170 a, 171a, 172 a, 180 a, concerning the signature with reser-
vations of the Convention of 9 December, 1948. for the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by the representatives of the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist
'Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and Czechoslovakia.
In this connexion, 1 have the honour to inform you, pursuant to
Article XVII (a), that the Permanent Representative of Guatemala to
the United Nations depositedwith the Secretary-General on 13 January,
19j0, the instrument of ratification of Guatemala to the said Convention
without objection to the above-mentioned reservations. The lissistant
Secretary-Geueral in charge of the Legal Department infonned the
Minister for Esternal Relations of Guatemala by letter of 19 January,
1950. that the deposit of the instrument of ratification by the Govern-
.ment of Guatemala having been made without objection to the above-
mentioned reservations. it was his understanding that the Guatemalan
Govemment accepted the said reservations (seehnex 1).
1 further have the honour to inform you that the Secretary-General,
in reply to this communication of 19 ~January, 1950, has received a
letter from the Under-Secretary of Extemal Relations of Guatemala,
dated 16 June, 19j0, by which the Government of Guatemala, having
now had due notice ofthese reservations. states that it isnot in agreement
irith rlie rcsçrv;itioiis mark hy the Go\vrnrneiirs of tlic Cnionüf Soviet
Socinlisr N~piiblici. the Ckrnininn So\.ivt Socililiit Re1)iiblic:in11C~~clio-
sIn\.aki3;in<ltlinr.conie<iiiriitl\~.irsliould not bç iiiferretl tlinr tlirGovcrn-
rnt:iit of (;untcni~la acc;prs ttiein rnerely l,écntiseit did iiut iiilke nny
rcfcrence rottiein indcl~ositingirsinsrrument of r:itifis;ition (set.Aniicx II).
1arii fiirther dircctc<l bv tlie Secrzt;ir\,-(;encra1 to infonii vou tliat
1 have replied to the ~ovérnment of Guatemala requesting irto state
whether it \vas its intention specifically to object ta the reservations in
question. 1 further statedthat, should the Government of Guatemala so
object, the legal cousequences would be that the Secretary-General
would not he in a position to accept for deposit instruments of ratifica-
tion from the Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and Czechoslovakia subject
to the aforesaid reservations (see Annex III).
1 have, etc.
fSiened1 A. H. FELLER.
t ~ " , ,
General Counsel and Principal Director,
Legal Department.
--
' ktter sent. inEnglish or in French, to al1 States iiivited to.sign or accede
to the Convention. WRITTES STATEMEST OF THE u.x.--AXNEXEÇ 161

ANNEXES TO DOCUMENT NO. 77
-

Annexed Document No. 78

Annex I
The ~siistant Secretary-General tothe Minister for External Relations
of Gzeatemala

LEG.~IS/~/O~/AL
19 January, 1950.
Sir,
1 have the honour to inform you that His Excellency Dr. Carlos
Garcia Bauer, Permanent Representative of Guatemala to the United
Nations, deposited with the Secretary-General, on 13January, 1950,the
instrument of ratification of Guatemala to the Convention on Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
1have the honour to refer in this respect to my letters Nos. C.N.172.
1949.TRE.4TIES and C.N.ISO.I~~~.TREATIES of 29 December, 1949,
and C.N.17o.rgqg.TREAT11Sç and C.N.I~I.I~~~.TREATIE~ of 30 De-
cember, 1949, notifying you of the signatures to the above-mentioned
Convention, with reservations relating to Articles IX and XII, by
the representatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the
Republic and Czechoslovakia.t Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
The deposit of the instrument of ratification of your Govemment
having been made without any reservation conceming the afore-men-
tioned rrservations, it is my understanding that your Government
accepts tliese reservations.
1have, etc.
For the Secretary-General :
(Signeù) IVANKERNO,

Assistant Secretary-General,
Legal Department.
* * *

Annexed Document No. 79

Annex II
The Under-Secretaryof Exlernal Relatio3zsof Guatemalafothe Assistant
Secrelary-General

[Translated from Spanish]
360 G
Guatemala, 16 June, 1950.
Sir,

1 have pleasure in referring ta you; letter No. LEG.~I~/z/o~/AL, of
lastby Mr. Carlos Garcia Bauer, Permanent Representative of Guatemala
to the United Nations, of the instrument of ratification by thevern-162 WRITTEX STATEJIEXT OF THE U.X.-ANSEXES .
ment of Guatemala of the Convention on Prevention and I'unishment
of the Crimeof Genocide.
In the aforesaid communication you refer to your letters of 29 and
30 December, 1949. relating to the signature of the above-mentioned
Convention by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Ukrainian
S.S.R. and Czechoslovakia with reservations in regard to Articles IX
and XII of the Convention.
You also point out that this Government's ratification, without any
reference to the above-mentioned reservations, implies that the Govem-
ment of Guatemala accepts them.
1must inform you that the Government of Guatemala is not in agree-
ment witli the reservations made by the Governments of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and
Czechoslovakia to the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide ; and tliat, consequently, it should iiot be inferred
that this Government accepts them merely because it did not make any
reference to them in depositing its instrument of ratification, since they
have no relation to theull acceptance of theconvention by this Republic.
1 have, etc. \
(Signed) EDUARDO DE LEON S.,
Under-Secretary of External Relations.

* * *

Annexed Document No. 80

Annez III

The General Cot6itseland Principal Director of the Legnl Department of
the United Nations to the fifinister for External Relationsoj Gziatemala

LEG.318/z/o3
14Ju~. 1950.
Sir,
1 have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of letter No. 360 G
of 16 June, 1950, from the Under-Secretary of External Relations of
Guatemala to the Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Legal
Department concerning the dcposit on 13 January 1st by Mr. Carlos
Garcia Bauer, Permanent Representative of Guatemala to the United
Nations, of the instrument of ratification by the Governinent of Gnate-
mala of tlie Convention on Prcveiition and Punishmerit of the crime
of Genocide.
1have the further honour to siate that, in connexion witli thesignature
of the said Convention by the Union of Soviet Socialist liepnblics, the
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and Ciechoslovakia, with reserva-
tions to Articles IS and XII thereof. to which our letter LEG.~IS/Z/O~/
AL of 19 January referred, due note lias beeii taken tliat the Govern-
ment of Guatemala is not in agreement with these reservations and that
consequently it should not beiiferred that the Government of Guatema!a
accents them merelv because it did not make anv reference to them in
the full acceptance of the said Convention by the Government ofelation to
Guatemala. \VRI~TES STATEMEKT OF THE u.s.-.~SSEXES 163

In this connexion, it would be appreciated if Your Excellency would
be good enougli to inform me whether the statements that the "Govern-
ment of Guatemala is not in agreement with these reservations, and that
it shoiild not be inferred tliat the Government of Guatemala accepts
them merely because it did not make any reference to them in depositing
its instrument of ratification", are intended to convey the meaning that
the Government of Guatemala, having had due notice of these reserva-
tions, specifically ohjects to them.
1 have the further honour to advise that, should Your Excellency
inform me that the Government of Guatemala objects to these reser-
vations, the,legal consequences will be that the Secretary-General would
not be in the position to accept for deposit instruments of ratification by
the Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Repuhlics, the Ukrain-
ian Soviet Socialist Republic and Czechoslovakia, suhject to the afore-
said reservations.
1 may further draw your attention to the fact tliat Our letter
LEG.318/z/o3 of 19January, 1950, referred also to the signatiire of the
aforesaid Convention with reservations in respect of ArticlesIS and XII
by the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic. As the letter of 16 June,
1950, from the Under-Secretary of External Relations does not refer to
these reservations made by the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist liepublic,
it would be appreciated if Your Excellency would be good enough to
specify the position of your Government in this regard.
1 may inform you that copies of Our letter LEG.~IS/~/~~/AI. of
19 January, ~qjo, of the letter from the Under-Secretary of Esternal
lielatioiis of Guatemala of 16 June, rgjo, and of the present letter, are
being circulated to al1>lembers of the United Nations and to al1non-
memher States to whom an invitation to become a party to the Conven-
tion has been addressed bv the Geiieral Assemblv.
1 liave, etc.

(Signeci)A. H. FELLEK,
General Counsel and Principal Director,
Legal Departinent.

Annexed Document No. 81

Ralificnlion par le Gzratemnla '

Je suis chargé par le Secrétaire générald'attirer votre attention sur
les lettres Nos. C.N.170a, 171 a, 172a et ISO a, du Secrétaire général
adjoint chargédu Département juridique, relatives à la sigiiature, avec
rtserves, de la Conventioii du q décembre 1948pour la prCvention et la
--
' Lettrcenvoyée, en françaisoiien anglais,à tousles ctatçinvitésà signer
la conventionou à y adhérer.1~4 WRITTES STATEXENT OF THE U.X.-ANNEXES

répression du crime de génocide par les représentaiits de l'Union des
Républiques socialistes soviétiques, de la République socialiste sovié-
tique de Biélorussie, de la République socialiste soviétique d'Ukraine
et de la Tchécoslovaquie.
A ce sujet, j'ai l'honneur de vous faire connaitre qu'en application
des dispositions de l'alinéa) de l'article XVII de la convention susvisée,
le représentant permanent du Guatemala auprh de l'organisation des
Nations Unies a déposé près le Secrétaire généralle, 13 janvier 1950.
l'instrument de ratification par lequel le Guatemala ratifie ladite con-
vention sans formuler d'objection à l'égarddes réserves susmentionnées.
Par lettre en date du 19janvier 1950, le Secrétaire généraladjoint
chargédu Département juridique a fait savoir au ministre des Relations
extérieures du Guatemala m'il considérait que le Gouvernement du
Giiatem;ila :icccytait lesdites rber\.ei. ~)uixlue cc Goii\vrncniciit n\,;cit
d<posi son instrurnrnt (le ratilication <:in5soule\.cr il'objzcti:i1'5-;trd
dei réservessusmentionnées (voir Annexe 1).
J'ai I'honneur de vous faire connaître en outre qu'en réponse à sa
lettre du 19 janvier rgjo, le Secrétaire général a reçudu sous-secrétaire
aux Relations extérieures du Guatemala une lettre en date du 16 juin
1950, dans laquelle le Gouvernement du Guatemala, ayant maintenant
dûment pris note de ccs réserves, déclare qu'il n'estpas d'accord avec
les réserves faites var le Gouvernement de l'union des Ré~ubliaues

par conséquentil ne faut pas conclure, du fait ,que le Gouvernement 'du
Guatemala n'a pas mentionné ces réservesen déposant son instrument
de ratification, qu'il les accepte (voir annexe II).
Je suis chargépar le Secrétaire généralde vous faire connaître égale-
ment qu'en réponseau Gouvernement du Guatemala, je lui ai demandé
de déclarer s'ilavait l'intention expresse de soulever des objections B
l'égarddes réserveseu question. J'ai ajouté que si le Gouvernement du
Guatemala s'oppose à ces réserves,lesconséquences juridiques en seront
que le Secrétaire généran le sera pas en mesure d'accepter le dépôt des
instruments de ratification émanant du Gouvernement de l'Union des
Ité[)iib1i<~1s1esialijtes so\~iL:ti<ls.u Gou\~eriicnicrit(IrI:iI<i!~iiibli<liic
socialiste so\.iCii<liit:J'Likr;iiiie ct du Goii\.t.rnem~.ntdc In Tchi.coslo\.a-
quie, avec les réserves susmentionnées(voir annexe III).
Je vous prie d'agréer, etc.
, u ,) A. H. FELLER
Conseiller généralet Directeur principal,
Département juridique. WRITTES STATEMEST OF THE U.S.-ASSEXES 165

AKNEXES AU DOCUMENT NO 61
-

Annexed Document No. 82

Annexe I

Le Secrétairegénéraladjoint au ministre des Relations extérieuresdu
Guatemala
Le 19 janvier 1950.
LEG.~IS/Z/O~/AL

Monsieur le Ministre,
J'ai l'honneur de faire connaître que Son Excellence M. Carlos Garcia
Bauer, représentant permanent du Guatemala auprès des Xations Unies,
a déposéauprès du Secrétaire général,le 13 janvier 1950, l'instrument
par lequel le Guatemala ratifie la Convention pour la prévention et la
répressiondu crime de génocide.
J'ai l'honneur de me référer à ce, sujetà mes lettres C.N.17z.1gqg.
TRAITES ~~,C.N.I~O.I~~~.TRAITESdu,zg décembre1949 et c.N.170.
I~~~.TRAITES et C.N.I~I.I~~~.TRAITES du 30 décembre1949,dans
lesquelles je portaiàvotre connaissance la signature de la convention,
avec des réserves concernant les articles IX and XII par les représen-
tants de l'Union des Républiques socialistes soviétiqiies,de la République
socialiste soviétiquede Biélorussie, dela République socialistesoviétique
d'Ukraine et de la Tchécosclovaquie.
L'instrument de ratification de votre Gouvernement ayant étédéposé
sans objection àl'égard desréserves susmentionnées.je comprends que
votre Gouvernement accepte ces réserves.
Veuillez agréer, etc.
Pour le Secrétaire général:

(Signé) IVANKERNO,
Secrétaire généraladjoint,
Département juridique.

***

Annexed Document No. 83

Annexe II

Le sous-secrétaireaux Relations extérieureJdu Gl~atemalaau Secrétaire
géndraladjoint
360 G
Guatemala, le 16 juin 1950.

Monsieur le'Secrétaire généraladjoint,

J'ai l'honneur de me référer à votre lettre no LEG.~IS/Z/O~/ALdu
19 janvier dernier, qui me notifie le dépôteffectuéle 13 janvier dernier,
par iiICarlos Garcia Bauer, représentant permanent du Guatemala
auprèsdes Nations Unies, del'instrument de ratification par le Gouverne-166 \\'RITTES STATEYEST OF THE u.s.-ASSEXES

ment du Guatemala à la Convention pour la prévention et la répression
du crime de génocide.
Dans cette communication,vous vous référez à vos lettres du zg et du
30 décembre1949, relatives à la signature de cette convention, avec des
réservesconcernant les arriclesIX et XII, par 1'Uniondes Républiques
socialistes soviétiques, la République socialiste soviétique d'Ukraine et
la Tchécoslovaquie.
Vous indiquez également dans votre lettre que la ratification de mon
Gouvernement, sans aucune référence à ces réserves, laissà entendre
que le Gouvernement du Guatemala les accepte.
pas d'accord avec les réservesfaites par les Gouvernements de l'Union
des Républiques socialistes soviétiques, de la République socialiste
soviétique d'Ukraine et de la Tchécoslovaquie à la Convention pour la
prévention et la répression du crime de génocide,et qu'il ne faut par
conséquentpas conclure du fait quemon Gouvernement n'apasmentionné
ces réserves en déposant son instrument de ratification, qu'il les accepte,
puisqu'elles n'ont rieà voir avec In pleine acceptation de la convention
par la République de Guatemala.
Je saisis, etc.

(Signé) I~DUARDO DE LEON S.,
Sous-secrétaire aux Relations extérieures.

* - *

Annexed Document No. 84

Annexe III

Le conseiiler généralet directetsrprincipa6dtr Difiariement j?:ridiqtredes
Nations Unies au ministre des Relations extérieuresdu Gziatemala
LEG.318/z/o3
Le 14 juillet 1950.
Monsieur le hlinistre,
J'ai l'honneur d'accuser réception de la lettre no 360 G, adresséeau
Secrétaire généraladjoint chargé du Département juridique, le IGjuin
1950. par le sous-secrétaire aux Relations extérieures du Guatemala, au
sujet du dépbt,effectuéle 13 janvier dernier parII.Carlos Garcia Rauer,
représentant permanent du Guatemala auprés des Nations Unies, de
l'instrument par lequelle Gouvernement du Guatemala ratifie la Conven-
tion pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide.
En ce qui concerne la signature de cette convention par l'Union des
Républiques socialistes soviétiques. la République socialiste soviétique
d'Ukraine et la Tchécoslovaquieavec des réservesconcernant lesarticles
IX et XII de la convention, signature à laquelle faisait allusion notre
lettreLEG.~I~/Z/O~/ALdu 19 janvier 1950, nous avons pris bonne note
de ce aue le Gouvernement du Guatemala n'est nas d'accord avec les
réserve; faitespar ces Gouvernements et que, par 'conséquent, ilne faut
pas conclure, du fait que le Gouvernement du Guatemala n'a pas meu-
tionné ces réservesen-déposant son instrument de ratification; qu'il les
accepte, puisqu'elles n'ont rien voir avec la pleine acceptation de cette
convention par le Gouvernement du Guatemala. WRITTEN STATEMEXT OF THE U.N.-ASXEXES 167

A ce propos, nous serions obligésà Votre Excellence de bien vouloir
nous faire savoir si le Gouvernement du Guatemala, en déclarant qu'il
n'est pas d'accord avec ces réserves et qu'il ne faut pas conclure, dulait
qu'il ne les a pas mentionnées en déposant son instrument de ratification,
qu'il les accepte, entend, aprés avoir dûment pris note de ces réserves,
s'y opposer expressément.
Je dois vous aviser que, si Votre Excellence me fait savoir que le

Gouvernement du Guatemala s'oppose à ces réserves, les conséquences
juridiques en seront que le Secrétaire général nesera pas en mesure
d'accepter le dépôtdes instruments de ratification par les Gouvernements
de l'Union des Républiques socialistes soviétiques, de la République
socialiste soviétique d'Ukraine et de la Tchécoslovaquie avec les réserves
susmentionnées.
Je voudrais de plus attirer votre attention sur le fait que notre lettre
T2EG.30Y/z/03/ATzdu 19 janvier 1950 signalait aussi la signature de
ladite convention, avec des réserves concernant les articles IX et XII,
par la République socialiste soviétique de Biélorussie. 'La lettre du

16 juin 19jo du sous-secrétaire aux Relations extérieures ne faisant pas
mention des réservesde la République socialiste soviétique de Biélorussie,
nous serions obligésBVotre Excellence de bien vouloir spécifierla position
de votre Gouvernement h ce sujet.
J'ai l'honneur de vous faire connaître,que je fais distribuer tous les
Membres des Nations Unies et à tous les Etats non membres que l'Assem-
bléeeénéralea invités à devenir uarties à la convention. co~ie de notre
lettrc~~~ 318/z/o3/AI, du 19 janvier xgjn, de la lettre du ;6 juin 19j0,

du sous-secrétaire aux Relations extérieures du Guatemala et de la
présente lettre.
Veuillez agréer, etc.
(Signé),A. H. FELIER,

Conseiller généralet Directeur principal,
Département juridique.

Annexed Document No: 85

CONVEYTION OP 9 DECEMBER, 1948, ON THE FREVEN.IIOY AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE

Communication /rom Gtintemala '

7 September, 1950.
Sir,
1 am directed by the Secretary-General to refer to letter C.N.113.1gjo.

TREATIES of z August, 1950, concerning the ratification by Guatemala
of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide and relating to certain reservations already made to that
Convention by the representatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist

Letter sentin English or in French, to al1 States invited ta sign or accede
to thc Convention. 168 WRI~ES STATEJIEST OF THE u.s.-ASSESES

Republics, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic and Czechoslovakia.
\\'ith that letter 1 communicated the expression of disagreement
on the part of the Government of Guatemala with the reservations in
question and advised that 1 had enquired whether it was the intention
of Guatemala specifically to object to tlie reservations in question, at
the same time drawing attention to the legal effect to be given by
the Secretary-General to such an objectiou.
1 now have the honour to submit herewith for your information the
answer received from theGovemment ofGuatemala tothe latter enquiry.
1 have, etc.
(Sigired) A. H. FELLER,

General Counsel and Principal Director,
Legal Departinent.

Annexed Document No. 86
THE UNI>~R-SECRETA OF EXTERXAL RI1LATIOPIS OF GUATEMALA TO TIIE

SECRETAKY-GENEHAL

032
Guatemala, 31 July, 1950.
Sir,
1 have tlie honour to acknowledge tlie receipt of note LEG.~IS/~/O~,
of 14 July, 19j~, from the Legal Departmeiit of the United S at'ions,
askiiig, in connexion with the ratification by Guatemala of the Conven-
tion on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, whether
the Guatemalari Government objects to the reservations made to the

C~ ~ ~~ion~ hv the Union ofSoviet Socialist lie~ublics and other countries.
ÿiicI~~iniiiig'ui~t1i:ittf il<locisu ublecr tiic Stcic~.,iy-(;ciicr:iI cuiili
ti~t;iiiei,t ior <lci.usiriii,tiiiidfr:itific;~iit,iifvniiitli<iiui;uvcriiiiiiiits
containing the jforesaid reservatioiis.
In reply 1have pleasure'in repenting the view expressed inmy commu-
iiication No. 7S6j. of 16 June, 19j0, in which this Ministry stated that
the Government of Guatemala \vas not in agreement with these reserva-
tions and that they had no relation to ratification and full acceptance of
the text of the Convention by my Government. 1 wish to add, in reply to
your question, that the Government ol Guatemala has always maintained
the view that reservations made upon signing or ratifying international
conventions are acts inherent in the sovereignty of States and are not
open to discussion, acceptanceor rejection by other States. In collective
conventions reservations made by a State affect only the application of
the clause concerned, in the relations of other States with the State
' makine the reservation.

\Viti; reference to the final paragraph of the note to which 1 refer, my
Governinent lias no objection to tliis reply being circulated in the same
maunir asthe ~revious correspondence:
1 have, etc.
(Signed) EDUARDO DE S.,
Under-Secretary of External Relations. WRITTES STATEZIEXT OF THE U.S.-.4SSEXBS
169
Annexed Document No. 87

Communication du Guatemala 1

Le 7 septembre 1950.

D'ordre du Secrétaire général,je me réfère à ma lettre C.N.113.1950.
TREATIES, en date du 2 août 1950. relative à la ratification par le
Guatemala de la Convention pour la prévention et la répressiondu crime
de génocide,et qui portait sur certaines réservesfaites précédemment à
cette convention par les représentants de l'Union des Républiques
socialistes soviétiques, de la République socialiste soviétique de Biélo-
russie, dela République socialiste soviétique d'Ukraine et de la Tchéco-
slovaquie.
J'indiquais dans cette lettre que le Gouvernement du Guatemala
n'était pasd'accord avec les réservesen question et que je lui demandais
de faire savoir s'il avait l'iiitention de faire des objections formelleà
ces réserves, en appelant en mêmetemps son attention sur les consé-
quences juridiques que le Secrétaire -énéraldevrait donner à ces obiec-
tioiis.
J'ai maintenant I'lionneur de vous communiquer, ci-joint, pour infor-
mation, la réponse que le Gouvernement du Guatemala a faite à cette
demande de précisions.
Je vous prie d'agréer, etc.

(Signé) A. H. ~'ELLER,
Conseiller généraiet Directeur principal,
Département juridique.

Annexed Document No. 88

[ï'radnit de l'espngrrolj

Guatemala, le 31 juillet, 1950.

Monsieur le Secrétaire générai,
J'ai l'honneur d'accuser réception de la note LEG.312/2/03. du
14 juillet 1950. par laquelle le Département juridique de l'organisation
des Nations Unies demandait à mon Gouvernement de préciser, ence qui
concerne la ratificatioii par le Guatemala de la Convention pour la
prévention et la répressioiidu crime de génocide, s'ils'opposait expressé-
ment aux réserves faites à cette convention par l'Union soviétique et

Lettreenvoyee, en frun$îisou en anglais,à tousles I);tats inviàésigner
la conventionou i y adhérer.170 \\'RITTES STATEZIEST OF THE U.S.-.ASSEXES

par d'autres pays, et lui faisait observer qu'au cas où le Gouvernement
du Guatemala s'opposerait à ces réserves,le Secrétaire généralne serait
pas en mesure d'accepter le dépôt des instruments de ratification par
ces Gouvernements avec les réservesen question.
En rénonse.ie tiens à confirmer à Votre Excellence ma communicatioi~
no786j,Ldu16juin 1950,où notre Chancellerie déclaraitque le Gouverne-
ment du Guatemala n'était pas d'accord a\.ec ces réserves, et qu'elles
n'avaient rien à voir avec la ratification et la uleine acce~tation du texte
de la convention par mon Gouvernement.
Je tiens à ajouter, en réponse à la question précisequi m'est posée,que
le Gouvernement du Guatemala a touiours soutenu cette thèse que les
réserves faites lors de la signature ou'de la ratification de ~on~èntions
internationales. sont des actes inhérents à la souveraineté des Etats et
aue d'autres Etats ne sauraient ni les discuter, ni les accepter, rii les
;eletc.r. 1)nns Ics cu~i\.entioiiscollectives. les rkerves fditzs pnr uii I'tat
n';iife;tent glic I'app1ic;itioiide la clause ci,rresl>~ii11;inIcirelations
des a~ ~es Ëtats-avec celui aui fait la réserve.
Eli cc qui coriccrnc le (Icriiier;tlinéade voiIIO~C., 111Go~i\.<:niemçiit
iic voir :iiiciiri incoii\.&ii:it:equc.\'<itrcI.'xct:llcri:issdistrihu~r la

présente réponsede la méme maiière que la correspondance antérieure.
.Je saisis, etc.
(Signé) EDUAKDO DE hON S.,
Sous-Secrétaire aux Relations extérieures.

Annexed Document No. 89

C.;V.I~I.T~~O.TKEATIES

COSVENTIOS aF g DECEMBER 1,948,ON THE PREVENTIOS AND
PUSISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF CESOCIDE
Con~muriication from Gaintemaln '

18 October, 1950.
Sir,
1 ain directed by the Secretary-Geueral to refcr to letter No. C.N.II~.
1gjo.ïRiZAT11SS of 3 August, ~gjo, notifying yau of the deposit by the
Government of the People's Kepublic of Rulgaria of its instrument of
accession to the Convention ou the Prevention and .l'unishment of the

Crime of Geiiocide, with reservations relating to Articles IX and XII.
1 have the honour to submit herewith a copy of a letter dated
26 September, 1950. from the Permanent Kepresentative of Guatemala
to the United Xatioiis stating the position ofthe Government of Guate-
mala in respect of the afore-mentioned reservations.
1 have, etc.
(Signed) 1. S. KERSO,
Assistant Secretary-General,
Legal Department.

--
1 Letter scnt, in English or in Frencto al1 States invitçà to sign accede
to the Convention. WRIITES STATEJIEST OF THE U.S.-ASSEXES 171

Annexed Document No. go

THE PERMANENT DELEGATE OP GUATEMALA TO THE UNITED NATIONS
IO THE i:ENI:K:\I.COCSJEL AS]> PRlSCI13.\I.>II(BCTUI< OF TllE LEC.41.
l>I!I'AI~T>IENT OF THE USIIFI) N.\TIUSS

[ï'ranslated /rom Spanish]
New York, 26 September, 1950.
Dear Sir,

1 have the honour ta refer to your note c.N.118 ~.I~~O.TREATIES,
dated 3 August last, referring to the accession, subject to reservations,
of the People's Republic of Bulgaria to the Convention of g December,
1948, on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
1 have to inform you that my Govemment is unable to accept the
basis of the reservations made at accession by Bulgaria; and that it
wishes ta confinn the opinion expressed in notes Nos. 7865 and 9830 of
the Guatemalan Chancellery, dated 16 June and 31 July of this year,
ta the effect that reservations made upon its signature or ratification of
international agreements are a matter inherent in the soGereignty of
States, and cannot be subject to discussion, acceptance or rejection by
other States; these reservations in respect of collective agreements
refer only to the application of the relevant clause in the relations
between other States and the State making the reservation.
1 have, etc.

(Signed) RICARDO CASTANEDP AAGANINI,
Permanent Delegate of Guatemala to the
United Nations.

Annexed Document No. gr

Communication du Guatemala '

Le 18 octobre 1950

Je suis chargé par le Secrétaire généralde me référer à la lettre
No. C.N.II~.IQ~O.TREATIES du 3 août 1~50. vous notifiant-du dépôt
par le Gouvernement de la République populaire de Bulgarie de l'ins-
trument d'adhésion, avecréservesrelatives aux articles IX et XII, à la
Convention pour.la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide.
J'ai l'honneur de vous communiquer, ci-joint, une copie de la lettre
en date du 26 septembre 1950, émanant du représentant permanent du

' Lettre envoyee, en fran~ais ou en anglàitaus lesÉtats invitéà signer
la conventionou à y adhdrer.

12 \YRI'R'ES STATEMEST 01; THE U.S.-ASSEXES
172
Guatemala auprès des Nations Unies et exprimant la position du Gou-
vernement du Guatemala à l'kgard des réserves mentionnéesci-dessus.
Je vous prie d'agréer, etc.

(Sigaé1 ). S. KERNO,

Secrétaire généraladjoint,
Département juridique.

Annexed Document No. gz

LE DÉLÉGUÉ PERMANENT DU GUATISDIALA AUPRÈS DES NATIONS UNIES.
AU CONSEILLER GÉNÉRAL ET DIllECTEUll PIllNClPALDU DEPARTE~IENT
JURIDIQUE DES NATIONS UNIES

[Tradui de l'espagnol]
New-York, le.26 septemore 1950.
Monsieur le Conseiiier,

J'ai l'honneur de me référeàvotre note C.N.118 a.=gjo TRAITES, du
3 aout rg50, relative à l'adhesion sous réserves de la République de
Bulgarie à la Convention du g décembre 1948 sur la prévention et la
répression du crime de génocide.
Je tiensà vous faire connaître que mon Gouvernement ne partage pas
la conception sur laquelle se fondent les réservesfaites par la Bulgarie
à cette convention, et qu'il confirme la thèse, expriméedans les notes
nos7865 et 9830, des 16juin et 31 juillet 1g50. de la Chancellerie guaté-
maltèque que les réservesfaites lors la signature ou de la ratification
de cqnventious internationales sont des actes inhérentsa souveraineté
des Etats et que d'autres Etats ne sauraient ni les discuter, ni les accep-
ter, ni les rejeter, ces réservesn'affectant dans les conventions collectives
que l'application de la clause correspondante dans les relations des
autres Etats avec celui qui faita réserve.
Je saisis, etc.

(Sig~tS é.)R. CASTASEDA PAGANINI,
Délégué permanent du Guatemala
auprès des Nations Unies.

Annexed Document No. 93

THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED KIKGDOM TO THE
SEGRETARY-GENERAL
No. UP 252112
" ,- 3Ist July, 1950.
I'our Excellencv,

His Majesty's Government lias taBen note of the reservations expres-
sed by the Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the
Byelorussian S.S.R., the Ukraiiiiaii S.S.12. and Czechoslovakia at the
time of their signature of the Convention ou the Preventioii and Punish- IVRITTES STATE\IEST OF THE U.9.-ASSEXES 773

ment of the Crime of Genocide. The text of these reservations in each
case reads as follows:
"At tlie time of signing the preseiit Convention the delegation
of [name of country] deems it essential to state the following :

As regards Article IX : [Name of country] does not coiisider as
binding upon itself the provisions of Article IX which provides that
dispiiteshetween the Contracting Parties with regard to the inter-
pretation, application and implementation of the present Conven-
tion shall be referred for examinatioii to the International Court at
the request of any party to the dispute, and declares that as regards
the International Court's jurisdiction in respect of disputes concern-
ing the interpretation, application and implementation of the
Coiiventioii, [name of country] will, as hitherto, maintain the
positioii that in each particular case the agreement of al1 parties
to the dispute is essential for tlie suhmission of any particular
dispute to the International Court for decision.

As retards Article XII: [Name of country] declares that it is
not iii arrreement with Article XII ofthe Convention and considers
that al1The provisions of the Convention sliould extend to non-self-
governiiig territories, including trust territories."
2. His hlajesty's Gorernment regrets that they are unable to accept
the above-mentioned reservations because in their riew the effect of
these reservations wonld be to alter in important respects the Convention
as drafted and as adopted at the tliird session of the General tlsseinbly.
His Alajesty's Government cannot tlierefore regard as valid any ratifica-
tion of the Convention maintaining such reservations.

3. The v'iewsof His Alajesty's Government as to the legal considera-
tions govçrniiig this matter are set out in the aniiexed memorancluni. As
this question has now been placed on the provisional agelida of the fifth
session ofthe General Assembly, His Majesty's Governnient requests the
Secretary-General to circulate this memoraiidum to al1JIembers of the
United Nations, and hopes that it will be possible for such Gorernments
to be in possession of the document at a sufficiently early date for them
to study the views contained therein before the subject is taken up in the
General Assembly.
1 am, etc.
[Signature iiiegible],
for the Secretary of State.

Annexed Document No. 94

THE UNITED KISGDO>I DELEGATION TO THE UNITED NATIONS TO THE
SECRETARY-GENERAL

23/47/50 E
30th September, 1950
Your Excellency,
1 have the honour to refer to hIr. Feller's letters C.x.114 and 118.
I~~o.TREATIES, of July 31st and Angust 3rd, 1950, ta hlr. Bevin, \\'RITTES STATEJIEST OF THE ü.S.-ASNEXES
'74
infoming him of the accessions, subject to reservations, of the Republic
of the Philippines and the People's Repuhlic of Bulgaria to the Conven-
tion on the Prevention and Puuishment of the Crime of Genocide. His
Majesty's Govemment have taken note of the reservations expressed by
these two Govemments at the time of their respective ratifications and
accessions to the Convention.
1 regret to infom Your Excellency that His Majesty's Government
are unable to accept the reservations made at accession hy the People's
-Republic of Bulgaria for the same reasonsas those set out in my letter
of July 31,1 50,regarding the reservationsexpressedby theGovernments
of the u.Ç.~.R., the Byelomssian S.S.R., the Ukrainian S.S.R. and
Czechoslovakia.
1 have also to inform vou that. for similar reasons, His bfaiesty's
Government are unable to accept the first two of the three reservations

mPhilippines.ication by the Government of the Republic of the

1 have, etc.

Annexed Document No. 95

THE UNITED KINGDOhl DELEGATION TO THE UNITEU NATIONS TO THE
SECRETARY-GENERAL
23/64/50 E
XO. 424
6th 1)ecember. 1950.
Your Excellency;

1have the honour to refer to 311.Feller's letters c.N.191 and.rg6.1gjo.
TREATIES of zrst and 29th November to &Ir.Bevin infoming him of
the accessions, subject to reservations, of the Government ofthe People's
Republic of Romania and of the Govemment of the Republic of Poland
to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of.
Genocide. His Majesty's Governmenthave taken note of the reservations
expressed by these two Govemments.
1 regret to infom Your Excellency that His Mnjesty's Government
are unable to accept the reservations made at accessionby the People's
Republic of Romania and the Republic of Poland, for the same reasons
as those set out in my letter of 31st July, 1950,regarding the reservations
expressed by the Governments of the U.S.S.R., the Byelorussian S.S.R.,
the Ukrainian S.S.R. and Czechoslovakia.
1 have, etc.
(Signed) GLADWYN JEBB. WRITTES STATEAIEXT OF THE U.S.-ASSEXES '75

Annexed Document No. 96

C.N.I~O.I~~O.TREATIEÇ

CONVENTION OF 9 DECEMBER, 1948, ON THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE

Commu?ticalion/rom Attstralia '

4 October, 1950.
Sir,
1am directed by the Secretary-General to refer to letters Xos. c.X.17~.
1949.TREATIES and C.N.I~O.TKEATIES of zg December, 1949, and
C.N.I~O.I~~~.TREATIES and C.N.I~I.I~~~.TREATIES of 30 Decem-
ber, 1949, notifying you of the signatures, ulth reservations relating to
Articles IX and XII, by the representatives of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, the Byeiomssian Soviet Socialist Republic, the
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and Czechoslovakia, to the Conven-
tion on the Prevention and Puiiishment of the Crime of Genocide.
1 am further to refer to letters C.N.1r4.195o.TREATIES of 31 July,
1950, and C.N.I~S.I~~O.TREATIEÇ of 3 August, 1950, notifying you
respectively of the deposit by the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines of its instrument of ratification of the said Convention with
reservations relating to Articles IV, VI, VI1 and IX, and of the deposit

of the instrument of accession by the People's Republic of Bulgaria to
this Convention with reservations relating to its Articles IX and XII.
1 now have the honour to submit herewitb a copy of a letter dated
26 September, 1950, from the Australian klission to the United Nations
in which the Australian Governmeut declines for the present to accept
any of the afore-mentioned reservations.
1 have, etc.
(Signed) 1. S. KERNO,
.4ssistant Secretary-General,
Legal Department.

Annexed Document No. 97

THE AUSTRALIAN MISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS

TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

File No. 21413 26 September, 1950.

Cosventionof g December,1948. on the Prevenlion and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Sir,

1 have the honour, by direction of the Minister of State for External
Affairs, toinfom you in reply to your letters C.N.170a, 171a, 172a and
180~.I~~~.TREATIES, and c.N.114 a. and 118~.I~~O.TREATIEÇ, that

' Lettersent,in Englishor French.to al1States inviteto signor aecede to
the Convention. V'RITTES STATE>IEST OF THE U.S.-.4SSEXES
176
it must not be understood for the present that thehstralian Govemment .
accepts any of the reservations specified in the copies of the procès-
uerbaztxofsignature and instruments ofratification and accessionenclosed
therewith.
In view of the fortlicomiiig discussion of the general question of
reservations to multilateral conventions by the fifth General Assembly,
the Australian Government reserves its position as to the effect of the
above-mentioned reservations, as well as the effect of the signatures,
ratifications or accessions to which they were apperided, and will nt a
later date inform yon of its attitude thereto.
1 have, etc.
(Sigxed) K. SHANN,
for the Afinister.

Annexed Document No. 98

Le 4 octobre 1950.

Je suis chargé par le Secrétaire généralde me référeraux lettres
nosC.N.I~Z.I~~~.TKEATIE~et C.N.I~O.I~~~.TKEATIESdu 29décem-
bre 1949 et C.N.r7o.rgqg.TIiEATIES et C.X.I~I.I~~~.'~REA'I'I~~d Su
30 décembre 1949, vous notifiant les signatures avec réserves relatives
aux articles IX et XII par les représentants de l'union des Républiques
socialistes soviétiques, de la République socialiste soviétique de Biélo-
russie, de la République socialiste soviétique d'Ukraine et de la Tchéco-
slovaquie.
Je suis en outre chargé par le Secrétaire généralde me référeraux
lettres nos C.N.II~.I~~O.TREATIES du 31 juillet ~gjo et C.N.118.1950.
TREATIES du 3 août 1950, VOUS notifiant respectivement du dépôt par
le Gouvemement de la République des Philippines de l'instrument de
ratification de ladite convention avec réserves relativBsses nrticles IV,
VI, VI1 et IX, et du dépôtde l'instrument d'adhésiondu Gouvemement
de laRépublique populaire de Bulgarie icette convention avec réserves
relativesàses articles IX et XII.
J'ai l'honneur de vous communiquer ci-joint une copie de la lettre en
date du 26 septembre rgjo, émanant de la Mission permanente dc
l'Australie auprès des Nations Unies par laquelle le Gouvernement de
l'Australie regrette de ne pouvoir accepter, pour le moment, les réserves
mentionnées ci-dessus.
Je vous prie d'agréer, etc.
(Signé 1. S. KERNO,
Secrétaire généraladjoint,
Département juridique.

Lettre envoyée, en françaiou en anglaisà tous lesÉtats invitésà signer
la convention ou à y adhérer. TVRITTES STATEJIEST OF THE U.S.-ANXEXES
177
Annexed Document No. 99

Dossier no 21413
Le 26 septembre 1950.
Conventiondzt9 décembre 1948 pour la préuentionet la répressiondu crime
de génocide

Monsieur le Secrétaire général,

I>'or~lr<<IIminiîtri. iI'l?rnt polir Ics :\ffnircs étranji)':II'tionnt."r.
+IIrrponsc i VUS I~trrcsC.S.r;o u,,i7i a, 172 rrct rSo 11 iq49TKi\I1'ES
et CSI 14 (1et rrS a.i~~o.TIt:\ITT:S, dc \wus inlormcr (iu'il riefaut us
entendre uour le momint aue le Gouvernement australien acce~te l'Une
<11iclcoii~1111!rd;csr\.es ~>réciséc;siiis Ics cupics des procés-verbaux(1ç
sijinntiirc zr clciiiistriimeiits (lerntiFis:itiuriet d'accessioriioirites aiiudires
letfres.
Etant donné ladiscussion qui va s'ouvrir devant l'Assembléegénérale,
lors de sa cinquième session, sur la question généraledes réservesaux
conventions multilatérales, le Gouvernement australien réservesa posi-
tion sur l'effet des réservessusdites, ainsi que sur l'effet des signatures,
ratifications ou accessions qu'elles accompagnaient et il vous fera
connaître ultérieurement l'attitude qu'il entendra prendre li cet égard.
Veuillez agréer, etc.
Pour le Ministre :

(Signé) K. SHANN.

Annexed Document No. IOO

C.N.I~~.I~~~>.TREATIES

CONVENTION OF g DECEMBER, 1948, ON THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE

Cornmz~~sicatiob ny Australia '

II December, 1950.
Sir.
1 am directed by the Secretary-General to refer to my letter No.
C.N.I~O.I~~O.TREATIE~of 4 October, 19j0, transmitting a copy of a
letter dated 26 September, 1950, from the Australian Mission to the
United Xations in which the Australian Government declined for the
preseiit to accept any of the reservations made at the time of signature
by the representatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the
Ryelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Kepublic and Czechoslovakia, and by the Government of the Republic
of the Philippines in its instrument of ratification, and by the Govern-
ment of the People's Republic of Rulgaria in its instrument of accession.

' Letter sent,inEnglisli orinFrench. to al1Statesinvited tosign or accede
to the Convention.17~ WRITTEN STATEXENT OF THE U.N.-ANNEXES

1 now have the honour to submit herewith a copy of a letter dated
15 November, 1950, from the Australian 3Iission to the United Nations
confirmig the attitude of the Australian Government with respect to
the afore-mentioned reservations.
The present communication is circulated in accordance with para-
gtaph 3 of the Resolution on reservations to multilateral conveiitions
adopted by the General Assembly on 16 November, 1950.
1 have, etc.
(Signed) 1. S. KERNO,

Assistant Secretary-General,
Legal Department.
--
Annexed Document No. 101

THE AUSTRALIAN DIISSION TO THE USITED NATIOSS TO THE
SECRETARY-GENERAL
File 2x413
15th November, 1950.

Conoentionof 9th December,1948, onthe Prer!e),timi
and Pzmisltmenlof the Crime of Gemcide
Sir,
1 have the honour, by direction of the hfinister of State for External
Affairs, to refer to my letter No. 21413of 26th September, 1950, and to
confirm tliat the Australian Government does not accept any of the
reservations contained in the instrument of accession dated 12th July,
1950, of the People's Republic of Bulgaria, or in the instrument of
ratification dated 23rd June, 1950, of the Republic of the Philippines.
Also, the Australian Government does not accept any of the reserva-
tions made at the time of signature of the above-named Convention by

Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic and the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic,
respectively, and would not, therefore, regard as valid any ratification
of the Convention maintaining such reservations.
1 have, etc.
(Sipzed) B. C. BALLARD,
for the llinister.

Annexed Document No. 102

C.N.I~~.I~~O.TREATIES

Conimzrnicdionde l'Australie '
Le II décembre 1950.

Je suischargépar le Secrétairegénéradle me référerà la lettre c.N.170.
--~o.TREATIES, en date du 4 octobre 1950. vous transmettant la copie
Letke envoyk, en fran~ais ou en anglai&,tous les États invites A signer
la convention ou à y adhbrer. WRITTES STATE5IENTOF THE U.5.-.4NSEXES '79
d'une lettre du 26 septembre 1950 de la délégationaustralienne auprès
des Xations Unies. Dans cette dernière lettre, le Gouvernement de
l'Australie déclarait <iu'il n'acce~tait. Dour le moment. aucune des
rCserves formulécs lori <le I:isigii:iti~r.ar Ir, rt:pr<sci~tantsde 1tinioi~
des IZtlpubli<luessoci:ilijres wviitiqiirs. di: In IZépiibliquesocialiitc
sovi~tiiiiiedc I<iélorussie. lela K<'uubliuuewcinl~sicso\,iéii(iiie<i'L'krainc
et de ia ~chécoslo~~aqui~ n,i les r&erv& formuléespar le ~huvernement
de la République des Philippines dans son instrument de ratification et
par le Gouvernement de la République populaire de Bulgarie dans son
instrument d'adhésion.
T'ai maintenant l'honneur de vous adresser ci-ioiiit la copie d'une
lettre en date du 15novembre ~gjo, émanantde la d&égatioiiau& .1'enne
auprès des Nations Unies, dans laquelle le Gouvernement de l'Australie
confirme son attitudeau suiet de ces réserves,
La présente communica'tion est transmise conformément ;ILIpara-
graphe? dela Résolutionadoptéepar l'Assembléegéntralele 16novembre
Ïa<o. concernant les r6serveiaux~conventions multilatérales.
,"Je vous prie d'agréer, etc.

(Signé) 1.S. KERSO,
Secrétaire généraladjoint,
Département juridiqiie.

Annexed Document No. 103

LA DEL~CATIOS AUSTRALIEKKE AUPRÈS DES SATIOSS USIES
AU SECRÉTAIRE GÉBÉRAI.
Dossier 21413
Le ~j novembre 19jo.

Conventio+ tu 9 déceinbre1948 poz~r la préventionet larépressiondu crime
de génocide

Monsieur le Secrétaire général,
D'ordre du ministre d'ctat pour les Affaires extérieures, j'ai l'honneur
de me référer à ma lettre 21413d ,u 26 septembre ~gjo, et de confirmer
que le Gouvernement australien n'accepte aucune des réservesformulées
dans l'instrument d'adhésion de la République populaire de Bulgarie
daté du 12 juillet 'gjo, ou dans I'instrument de ratification de la Répu-
blique des I'hilippines daté du 23 juin 1950.
En outre, le Gouvernement australien n'accepte aucune des réserves
formulées, lors de la signature de la convention susmentionnée, par la
Tchécoslovaquie, l'union des Républiques socialistes soviétiques, la
République socialiste soviétique d'Ukraine et la République socialiste
soviétique de Biélorussie, respectivement ; il ne considérera donc pas
comme valides les ratifications de cette convention qui maintiendraient
ces réserves.
Je vous prie d'agréer, etc.
Pour le Ministre :
(Sig4 B. C. BALLARD.

----180 \VRITTES STATE~IEKT OF THE u.s.-ANNEXES

Annexed Document No. 104

THE SI!CRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE I'HILIL'PINES TO THE
SECKETAKY-GENEKAL
285
D~ember rj, 19jo.
Excellency,

Refereiice is made to your despatch (File Zio. C.N.197.1gjo.
TREATIES) dated II December, 19jo. enclosing copy of a letter of
15 Novembcr, 1950, from the Australian Alissionto the United Nations
coiilirming the previous position of the Australiaii Government to the
effect thnt it does not accept ariy of the reservatioiis made to the Conven-
tion of 9 December, 1948, on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crirne of Genocide, among others, by the Govcrnment of the Republic
of tlie I'hilippines in its instrument of ratification clated Jun23, igjo.
Please be informed that mv Govemment does not reco~nize such
iii,ii.:nc~~.ptam h!. tlie :\irstritli:,ii (;o\.ernmerii uttic rcier\,:itions
cnntaiiit!din the:~iurrj:tidinjtrtiii1ciit111:iily \v:iy:ificctiiigthc:v:ilid~ty
of tli?i:itiiic;~ti~i,v tlic I'liiliiiiiiiiei;~v~.rii ~tli,(:.>II\.< iiti\IVi.
Govcrnment is prepared to briii this matter as a contentions case befo;e
the International Court of Justice in accordance with the procedure laid

dowii in Article IX of the Convention.
Accept, etc.

(Sig~ed) CI\~~os P. RO~IULO,
Secretary of Foreign Affairs
of the Philippines. WRITTES STATE~IEST OF THE u.s.-ASSEXES 181

PART FIVE.-ACKNO\VLEDGEhlENTç OF GOYERNAIEXTS
RATIFYING OR ACCEDING, AFTER NOTICE OF

RESERVATIONS, \VITHOUT COM.\IENT THEREON

Annexed Document No. 105

THE ASSISTANT SECRET:\RY-GESI!RA TL THE MINISTER FOR EXTERNAL
I<BLATIONS OF PAKAMA

LEG.~IS/Z/O~/AL
13 January, 1950.
Sir.

His Excellency Mr. Mario de Diego, Ambassador Extraordinary
and Plenipoteiitiary. Permanent Xepresentative of Panama to the
United Nations, lias deposited witli the Secretary-General, on
II January, 1950, the instrument of ratification of Panama to the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crimeof Genocide.
1 have the Iionour to refer in this respect to my letters Nos.
C.N.I~Z.I~~~.TREATIES aiid C.N.I~~.I~~~.TREATIES of zg Decein-
ber, 1949. and C.N.I~O.I~~~.~'I~E~\TII~ aÇnd C.N.171.1g4g.TREATIES
of 30 December, 1949. by \vhicli 1 ~iotifiedyou of the signatures to
the said Convention, with reservations relating to Articles IX and
XII, by the representatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
the Bvelorussian Soviet Socialist Reoublic. the Ukrainian Soviet

~&iai;t ReGblic and Czechoslo\.akia. '
The deposit of the instrument of ratification having been made
\vithout any observations concerning the afore-mentioned reservations,
it is my understanding that your Government accepts these reser-
vations.
1 have, etc.
For the Secretary-General :
(Signed) IVANKERKO,
Assistant Secretary-General,
Legal Department.

Annexed Document No. 106

THE ASSISTANT SECl<liTAKY-GENElIAL TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN
AI;I:AIKS OF lSRAEL1

' Letter datcd January15th. 1950,vhich is mutatis midandithe same as
Anneïed Document So. io5. Not repraduced.182 WRITTEN STATEXENT OF THE U.N.-ANNEXES

Annexed Document No. 107

LE SECR~TAIRE GÉNÉRAL ADJOINT AU MINISTRE D'ÉTAT DIRECTEUR DU
SERVICE DES RELATIONS EXTÉRIEURES DE LA PRINCIPAUT~ DE MONACO

LEG.318/z/o3

Le IO avril 1950.
Monsieur le Ministre,
J'ai l'honneur de vous informer que hlonsieur Jean Dubé, consul
de la Principauté de Monaco à New-York, a transmis.au Secrétaire
généralle 28 mars ~gjol'instrument d'adhésionde Monaco à la Conven-
tion sur la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide, qui
a étéreçu au Secrétariat le 30 mars 1950.

J'ai l'honneur de me référeràce sujetà mes lettres nosC.N.172.194g.
TREATIES et C.N.I~O.I~~~.TREATIES du 29 décembre 1949. et
C.N.I~O.I~~~.TREATIES et C.N.I~I.I~~~.TREATIES du 30 décembre
1949, VOUS notifiant les signaturàsla convention ci-dessus mentionnée,
avec des réservesconcernant les articles IX etXII, par les représentants
de l'Union des Républiques socialistes soviétiques, de la République
socialiste deiélomssie,de la République socialiste sovibtique d'Ukraine
et de la Tchécoslovaquie.
Le dépbt par votre Gouvernement de l'instmment d'adhésionayant
étéeffectué sans aucune observation relative aux réserves ci-dessus

mentionnées, je comprends que votre Gouvernement accepte ces
réserves.
Je vous prie d'agréer. etc.
(Sig~zé)IVANKERNO,
Secrétaire généraladjoint,
Département juridique.

Annexed Document No. 108

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY-GENERA TL THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN
AFFAIRS OF THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF THE JORDAN1

Annexed Document No. log

THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF THE LEGAL
DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF
LlBElllA'

Letter dated Xay 4th. 1950. whichmulolis mutnadthe same as Annexed
Document No. 105. Xot reproduced.
' Letter dateJune19th. 1950. whichmutalis mutandithe same as Annexed
Document No. 105. Not reproduced. WRITTEX STATEMENT OF THE u.N.-ANNEXES 183

Annexed Document No. IIO

THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF THE LEGAL
DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS TO THE MINISTER FOR
FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF SAUDI ARABIA '

Annexed Document No. Irr

THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF THE LEGAL
DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS TO THE MINISTER FOR

FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF TURKEY

Annexed Document No. 112

-
JURIDIQUE DES NATIONS UNIES AU MINISTRE DE LA
JUSTICE DU VIET-NAM

Annexed Document No. 113

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY-GENERAL TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN
AFFAIRS OF YUGOSLAVIA

Annexed Document No. 114

TEE ASSISTANT SECRETARY-GENERAL TO THE MINISTER FOR EXTERNAL
RELATIONS OF EL SALVADOR

Annexed Document No. 115

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY-GENERAL TO THE MINISTER FOR EXTERNAL
RELATIONS OF CEYLON

--
Letter dated July z~st, 1950,which ismutatis mutandis the same as Annexed
Document No. 105. Not reproduced.

Letter dated August 7th. 1gwhich iç mutatis mutandis the same as Annexed
Document No. 105, Not reproduced.
a Lettre endate du 30aaht rgja,dont le texte est mutatis mutandis le même
que celui du document annexb no 107. Non reproduite.
' Letter dated Scpternbe7th. 1g50, which is nii'tatis mutandis the çame as
Annexed Document No. 105.Not reproduced.
' Letterdated October 6th. 1950.which is mzitatis mutandisthe same as
Annexed Document Ko. 105.Not reproduced.
' Letterdated November 15th.1950, which is mutatis mutandis the same as
Annexed Document No. 105.Not reproduced.1~4 JYRITTES STATEXIEST OF THE U.N.-ASXEXES

Annexed Document No. 116

LE SECRÉTAIRE GÉNÉRAI. ADJOINT AU I'RÉSIDENT DU CONSEIL DES
hIINISTRES, 3lINlSTRE DES AFI':\IRES ÉTRANGERES DU C.4MBODCE '

Annexed Document No. 117

THE ASSISTANT SECRET>\RY-GENIEHAL IO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
EXTERNAL RELATIONS OF COSTA RICA

Annexed Document No. 116

LE SECRÉTAIRE GÉNERAL hDJOlNT AU hllNISTRE DES AFFAIRES ETRANCÈRES
DE FRANCE'

Annexed Document No. Irg

LE SECRÉTAIRE GÉNÉRAI. ADJOINT AU SECRETAIRE D'ÉTAT DES RELATIONS
EXTÉRIEURES DE HAÏTI '

Annexed document No. 120

THE ASSISTANT SECRETAIIY-GENERAL TO THE hlINISTElI OF STATE FOR
FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF KOREA a

Annexed Document No. 121

LE SECRETAIRE CÉNÉRAL ADJOINT AU PKEhllER MINISTRE, PRÉSIDENT DU

CONSEIL DES MINISTRES DU LAOSS

Lettre en date du 15 novemhre 1950, dont letexto est mutatis mutandis le
même que celui du document annext no 107. Non reproduite.
Letter dated November 15th. 1950, which iç mi'tatis mutandis the saas
Annexed Document No. 105. Sot rcproducerl.
Lettre en date du 12 janvier1951, dont Ic texte est rnz~tatismt<tondis le
mSme que celui du document annexC n' 107. Non reproduite. WRITTES SThTEIlEST OF THE U.S.-AXSEKES '65

PART SIX.-REPLIES OF GOVERNMENTS TO THE FOREGOING
-

Annexed Document No. 122

C.N.I~~.I~~O.TREATIES

CONVEXTION OF g DECI~MBER 1,48, ON THE PRBVENTION AND
PUNISHMBNT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE

Commzrnicalionfrom ,El Salvador '

2j November, 1950.
Sir,
1am directed by tlie Secretary-General to transmit herewith a transla-
tion of the letter 1 have received from the Alinister for Foreign Affairs
of the Government of El Salvador concerning theattitudeof his Govern-

ment in respect to the reservations to the Convention on tlie Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide made at the timï of signature
by the representatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist liepublics, the
13yelorussian Soviet Socialist liepublic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic and Czechoslovakia, and by the People's Rcpublic of Bulgaria
in its instrument of accession, ancl the Republic of tlie l'liilippines in its
instrument of ratification, nllprior to the date ofdeposit ofthe instrument
of ratification to the said Convention by the Goveriiment of El Salvador.
The present communication is circulated in accordance with para-
graph 3 of the Resolution on reservations to multilateral coiiveritions
adopted by the General Assembly on 16 Xovember, 1950.
I have, etc.
(Sig71t-d)1. S. KERNO,
Assistant Secretary-General,
Legal Department.

Annexed Document No. 123

THE hlIN1STER FOR FOlllIlGN AFFAIRS .OF EL SALVADOR TO THE
ASSISTANT SECKBTARY-GENERAL

Iï'ranslated from Spanisl&]

A-joo-E-736
San Salvador, 27 October, 1950.
Sir,
1have the honour to acknowledge thereceipt ofyournoteLEG.316/~/03
of 6 October, 1950. in which, with reference to the deposit by my
Government of the instrumeiit of ratification of the Convention on tlie
Prevention and Punisliment of the Crime of Genocide, you informed
me that it is the understaiiding of the Secretary-General of the United
--
' Lettersent,in Engliçhor in French,to al1Statcs iiiviteta sign or accede
to the Convention.186 \\'RITTES ST.4TEMEST OF THE U.S.-ASSEXES
Xations that thc Government of El saivador, having made no objection
to the reservations to the Convention made by the representatives of the
Soviet Union, Byelorussia, the Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, the Philippines
aiid Bulgaria, prior to the date of deposit of the instrunient of ratification,
has tacitly accepted those reservations.
This nfinistry profoundly regrets that it cannot concur in so autbori-
tative an opinion since it was not the intention of tlic Government of
El Salvador, iiiratifying the aforesaid Convention without reservatiori.
to refer in any way whatsoever to the reservations made, in anact of full
sovereignty, by the above-meiitioned countries. My Government does
not wish to make objection to those reservations, but it expresses its

complete disagrccment with them, in particular those relatirig to
Articles IS and XII of the Convention.
In respectfully informing you of the foregoing1 must ask you to,regard
the present note as a faithful espression of my Government's views in
this matter. 1 avail myself of this opportunity. etc.
(Sigiied) ROBERTO E. CASESA.

Annexed Document No. 124

C.N.I~~.I~~O.TREATIES

Communicatioin du Saluador- '

Le 25 novembre 19jo.
Le Secrétaire généralm'a chargéde vous communiquer ci-joint la
traduction de la lettre que j'ai reçue du ministre des Relations extérieures
du Gouvernement du Salvador concernant l'attitude de son Gouverne-
ment au sujet des réserves à la Convention pour la prévention et la
répressiondu crime de génocide,formulées,lors de la signature, par les

représentants de l'Union des Républiques socialistes soviétiques, de la
République socialiste soviétiquede Biélorussie, dela République socia-
liste soviétique d'Ukraine et de la Tchécoslovaquie,ainsi que les réserves
fornulées par la liépublique populaire de Bulgarie dans son instrument
d'adhésionet par la Képubliquedes I'hilippines dans son instrument de
ratification toutes ces réservessont antérieures à la date à laquelle le
~o~ ~rnement du Salvador a dé~osél'instrument de ratification de
ladite convention.
La présente communication est transmise conformément au para-
graphe 3 de la Résolution adoptée par l'Assemblée générale le
16 novembre 1950, relative aus réservesaux conveiitions multilatérales.
Veuillez agréer, etc.
(Signé) 1. S. KERNO,
Secrétaire généraladjoint,
Département juridique.

--
'Lettre envoyée. en françaisou en anglais.à tous les Etuts invités à signer
1sconvention ou à y adhhrerer. WRITTEN STATEUENT OF THE U.S.-ASSEXES 187

Annexed Document No. 125

LE MINISTRE DES RELATIONS EXTÉRIEURES DU SALVADOR AU SECRETAIRE
GÉNÉRAL ADJOIRT

[ï'raduide l'anglais]

A-500-E-73G
San Salvador, le 27 octobre rgjo.

Monsieur le Secrétaire général,
J'ai l'honneur d'accuser réception de votre note LEG.318/z/o3 du
6 octobre ~gjo par laquelle vous m'avez fait savoir, au sujet du dép0tpar
mon Gouvernement de I'iiistrument de ratification de la Convention pour
la préventionet la répressiondu crime de génocide,que,leGouvernement
du Salvador n'ayant pas soulevé d'objections, avant la clate de dép0tde
l'instrument de ratification, aux réserveà la convention formuléespar
les représentants del'Union soviétique,de la Biélorussie,de l'Ukraine,de
la Tchécoslovaquie,des Philippines et de la Bulgarie, le Secrétaire général
considèreque le Gouvernement du Salvador a acceptéces ri'serves.
Le ministère des Relations extérieures regrette profondément de ne
pouvoir partager une opinion :tussi autorisée, car le Gouvernement du
Salvador, en ratifiant sans réserve la convention précitée, n'apas eu
l'intention de se référeren aucune façon aux réservesformuléesdans le
plein exercice de leur souverairieté par les pays mentionnés ci-dessus.
Alon Gouvernement ne désire pasformuler d'objections à ces réserves,
mais il tienà déclarer qu'illes désapprouvecompl&temerit,en particulier
les réservesaux articlesIS et XII de la convention.
En vous informant de ce qui précede, je vous prie de bien vouloir
considérerque la présente ilote est l'expression fidèledes vues de mon
Gouvernement en la matière.
Je saisis, etc.

(Signé) ROBERTO 13. CASESA.

Annexed Document No. 126

C.N.I~~.I~~O.TKEATIES

CONVENTION OF g DECEMBER 1,948,ON THE PREVENT~ON AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE

Communication by VietNam '

--
'Letter dated December 6th. 1950.which ismufalis mutandis the same as
Annexed Document No. 122.Not reproduced.

13188 WRIT~ES ST.+TBJIEST OF THE u.s.-ASSEXES

Annexed.Document No. 127

THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE XINISTRY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF
VlET FAM TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF THE

LEGAL IIEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS

[Translated /rom Fre~~cl~]
Saigon, 3 November, 1950.
Sir,
1have the hoiiour to :icknowledge receipt of your letter LEG.318/z/o3
of 30 August, 1950, inforining me that the instrument of accession of the
Government of \'iet Nam to the Convention for the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was received bv the Secretariat of
the United Nations on II August, 1950.
In this communication yon referred to your letter LEG.318/z/o3 of

31 May, 19j0, concerningthe signature of-this Conïention with reser-
vations in regard to Articles IX and XII by the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, the Ryelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic and Czechoslovakia ; and to your letters
C.N.II~.TREATIES of 31 July, 1950, and C.N.II~.TKEATIES of
3 August, xgjo, coiicerniiig the deposit by the Government of the Philip-
pine Republic of its instrument of ratification of the said Convention
with reservations in regard to Articles IV, VI, VI1 and IX, and to the
deposit of the instrument of accession of the Government of the People's
Republic of Rulgaria to that Convention with reservations in regard to
Articles IX and XII.
You conclude that, since the Government of Viet Nam deposited its
instrument of accession to the Convention without remark on the above-
mentioned reservations, my Government has impIicitly acceptecl them.
1wish to inform you tliat it was the intent of the Government of \'iet
Nam, in acceding to the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide. to accept only the text of that Convention as
approved on 9 December, 1945, in Resolution 260 (III) A and voted by
the General Assembly of the United Xations at its 179thplenary meeting,
and not the reservations subinitted by the above-mentioned States or by
any other Çtate at the time of signature by their representatives, or of

deposit of theirinstruments of ratification or accession to the Convention.
The Government of Viet Nam does not consider that it should at tliis
time give its views on the substance of the reservations made ,by the
States concerned.since a ciuestionof princi~leis involved which willhave
to be settled on a more general levei: nakeiy, to what extent reserva-
tions may be made to miiltilnteral conventions, and the effect tliereof.
1 have, etc.
For the President of the Council and
3linister of Foreign Affair:

[Signature illegible],
General Secretary. WRITTES STATE>lENT OF THE U.S.-ASSEXES 189

Annexed Document No. 128

C,H.I~~.I~~O.TREATIES

CONVENTION DU 9 DECEMBR1 E948 POUR LA PRÉVENTION
ET 1..RÉPRESSION DU CRIME DE GÉNOCIDE
Communication $ar leViet-Nam '

Annexed Document No. 129

LE SECRETAIR EÉNÉRAL AUX.AFFAIIIES ÉTRANGÈRES DU VIET-NAM AU
CONSEILLER CÉ'ERAL ET DIRBCTEUR PRINCIPAL DU DÉPARTEMENT
JURIDIQUE DES NATIONS UNIES

Saïgon, le 3 novembre 1950.
>Ionsieur le Conseiller général,

J'ai l'honneur d'accuser réceptionde votre lettre no LEG.318/2/03 du
30 août 1950 me faisant savoir que I'instrumeiit d'adhésiondu Gouver-
nement du Viet-Ham à la Convention pour la prévention et la répression
<lu crime de génocidea étéreçu au Secrétariat généralde l'O. N. U. à
la date du II aont 1950.
Dans cette communicatio~i, vous \,eus êtes référé à votre lettre
no LEG.318/2/03 du 31 mai 1950relative i la signature de cette conveii-
tion avec des réservesconcernant les articles IX et XII par l'Union des
Républiques socialistes soviétiques,la République socialiste soviétique
de Biélorussie,la République socialistesoviétiqued'Ukraine et la Tchéco-
slovaquie ; vous vous êtes référéégalement à vos lettres C.Pi.11q.
1'REATIES du 31 juillet 1950 etC.h'.118.TREt\TIESd u 3a0oûl-
tives au dépôtpar le Gouvernement de la Républiquedes Philippines <le
l'instrument de ratification de ladite convention avec réserves concer-
nant les articles IV, VI,I1 et IS et au dépBtde l'instrument d'adhé-
sion du Gouvernement de la République populaire de Bulgarie à cette
convention avec réservesconcernant sesarticles IX et XII.
Vous avez conclu que le dépôt par le Gouvernement viétnamien de
l'instrument d'adhésion à la convention ayant étéeffectuésans aucune
observation relative aux réserves ci-dessusmentionnées, mon Gouver-
nement est censéavoir accepté ces réserves.
Je crois devoir vous faire connaître que leGouvernement du Viet-Nam,

en adhérant à la Convention pour la prévention et la répressiondu crime
de génocide, entend accepter seulement le texte de ladite Convention
telle qu'ella étéapprouvée le g décembre 1948 par la Résolution 260
(III) A votée par l'Assembléegénéraledes Nations Unies à sa 17gme
séance vlénière. à l'exce~tion des réserves rése entéeDs ar les États
sus-indigués ou par d'au&es États lors de la ;ignature par leurs repré-
sentants, ou du dépôtde leur instrument de ratification ou d'adhésion
la convention.
Le Gouvernement du Viet-Nam estime n'avoir pas pour le moment à
donner son opinion sur la valeur des réservesexprimées par les Etats

'Lettre en datedu 6 dkernbre 1950.dont le texte. est mulamda>tdisle,
mêmeque celui ddocument annex6 no 1-24Non reproduite. 19'' WRITTES STATEXEST OF THE U.S.-ANNEXES
intéressés,s'agissant d'une question de principe qui doit êtrerégléesur
un plan plus général, à savoir dans quelle mesure des réservespeuvent
être apportées aux conventions multilatérales et quels seront leurs
effets.

Je saisis. etc.
P. le Président du Conseil,
Ministre des Affaires étrangéreset P. O.:
Le Secrétaire général,
[Signature illisible.]

Annexed Document No. 130

LE SECRÉTAIRE GÉNBRAL AUX AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES IIU VIET-NAD AU
SECRÉTAIRE GÉNÉRAL ADJOINT
No 1118-MAE/Cal

Saigon, le 22 décembre 1950.
Monsieur le Secrétaire généraladjoint,

J'ai l'honneur d'accuser réception de votre lettre no C.N. 191a.Igjo.
TREATIES du 21 novembre 1950 portant notification de l'adhésionde
la République populaire de Roumanie àla Convention pour la prévention
et la répressiondu crime de génocide,avec des réserves concernant les
articles IX et XII.
Dans la mêmelettre, vous avez fait part du désirdu Secrétairegénéral .
de connaître l'attitude de notre Gouvernement vis-à-vis de ces réserves.
J'ai l'honneur de vous faire connaître que notre Gouvernement main-
tient son point de vue exprimé dans notre lettre no 866-MAE/Cab du
3 novembre 1950, et selon lequel le Viet-Xam, en adhérantà la Conven-
tion pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide,entend
accepter seulement le texte de ladite convention telle qu'elle a été
approuvée le g décembre 1948 par l'Assembléegénéraledes Nations
Unies, à l'exclusion des réservesprésentéespar les Etats IIembres lors
de la signature de la convention ou du dépôt de leur instrument de ratifi-
cation ou d'adhésion à la convention.
Veuillez agréer, etc.

P. le Prbsideiit du Gouvernement,
Ministre des Affaires étrangères:
Le Secrétaire d'État à la Présideiice,
(Signé[) Illisible.]
[Cachet]
--

Annexed Document No. 131

LE SECKÉTAIRE CÉNÉRAL ADJOINT AU SECRETAIR GÉNÉRAL AUX AFFAIRES
ÉTHANGÈRES DU VIET-NAM
LEG.318/z/o3
Le 12 janvier IgjI.
Monsieur.

Je suis chargé par le Secrétaire général d'accuserréception de votre
lettre rr18:MAE/Cal du 22 décembre 1950 par la<luelle vous faites WRI'ITESST:\TEMEST OF THE U.S.-ASSEXES
191
connaître que votre Gouvernement maintient son point de vue selon
lequelu le Viet-Nam, en adhérant à la Convention pour la prévention et
la répressiondu crime de génocide,entend accepterseulement le texte de
ladite convention tel qu'il a étéapprouvé le g décembre 1948 par
l'Assembléeg,énéraldees Nations Unies,à l'exclusion des réserves présen-
téespar les Etats Membres lors de la signature de la convention ou du
dépôtde leur iiistrument de ratification ou d'adhési».
Par sa lettre circulaire 1g1a.xgjo.TREATIES du 21 novembre 1950
à laquelle vous vous référez,le Secrétaire générala suivi sa pratique
antérieure conformément aux dispositions de la Résolution adoptée par
l'Assembléegénérale à sa 305meséance plénière,le 16 novembre xgjo,
relative aux réservesaux conventions multilatérales.
Cependant, conformément au paragraphe 3 de ladite résolutioii, la
méthode suivie par le Secrétaire généralest sans préjudice de l'effet
juridique que l'Assembléegénérale pourra à sa sixième session recom-
mander d'attribuer aux objections élevéescontre les réserves aux
conventions.
Je vous prie d'agréer, etc.
(Signé).IVAN S. KERNO,
Secrétaire généraladjoint,

Département juridique.:

Annexed Document No. 132
LE MINISTÈRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRAKCE AU SECRÉTAIRE
GÉNÉRAL
N" IjO
Pans. le 6 décembre 1gjo.

Monsieur le Secrétaire général,
Vous avez bien voulu, par lettre LEG.318/z/o3 du rj novembredernier,
accuserréception du dépôtpar la France de soninstmment de ratification
de la Convention pour la prévention etla répressiondu crime de génocide,
et indiquer que, ce dépôt ayant été effectue sans aucune observation
relative aux réservesexpriméespar certains Etats, vous compreniez que
le Gouvernement de la République acceptait ces réserves.
J'ai l'honneur de vous rappeler que la thèse du Gouvernement français,
longuement exposéepar soi1représentant devant la SixièmeCommission
de l'Assembléegénérale desNations Unies, et dont vos services ,oiit
certainement eu connaissance, est que les réserves formuléespar lin Etat
lors de la signature ou de la ratification d'une convention ou de son
adhésion à celle-ci ne sont opposableàune partie contractante qu'après
avoir fait l'objet d'un accord formel de sa part. L'absence d'observations
du Gouvernement français aux réserves formuléespar certains Etats ne
saurait donc dans le cas présent êtreconsidéréecommeune acceptation
desdites réserves.
Le Gouvernement de la République ne pourrait éventuellement
modifier son point de vue en ce qui concerne la validité des réserves
aux traités multilatéraux qu'après que se seront prononcées, conformé-
ment A la Résolution de l'Assembléedu 16 novembre dernier, la Cour
internationale de Justice et la Commission du droit international.
[Signature illisible.] IVRITTES STATEhlEST OF THE U.X.-ASSEXES
Ig2

Annexed Document No. 133

LE SECRETAIRE GÉNÉHAL AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ETRANGERE DSE
FRASCE
LEG.318/z/o3
Le 12 janvier 1951
Monsieur le Ministre,

Je suis chargé par le Secrétaire générald'accuser réceptionde votre
lettre no 150 du 6 décembre1950 dans laquelle vous exprimez 1,'opinioii
du Gouvernement français que <rles réservesfomuKes par un Etat lors
de la signature ou de la ratification d'une convention ou de son adhésion
à celle-ci ne sont opposables à une partie contractante qu'après avoir
fait l'objet d'un accord formel de sa part et que «l'absence d'observa-
tions du Gouvernement français aux réserves formulées par certains
États ne saurait donc dans le présent cas[Convention pour la préventioii
et la répressiondu crime de génocide]êtreconsidéréecomme une accep-
tation desdites réservesn.
Je me permets cet égardd'attirer votre attention sur la Résolution
adoptée par l'Assembléegénérale à sa 3ojrnoséanceplénière,le 16novem-
bre 1950, concernant les réserves aux conventions multilatérales par
laquelle l'Assemblée générale

Invite le Secrétair-aéiiéral,en attendant que la Cour internatio-
iialt de Jii;tice ait donnC.suri n\.is consiilt:it~l, que la Commissioii
du droit iritcrnntionnl ait fait pnr\.enir soii rapetrque I'i\ssem-
bléeréri;rale ait i)ris iinr ri<,iivelledCcijioi~.d appliqiic.r In méttiode
qu'ila suivie juçqu'ici pour la réception des rkserves aux conven-
tions, pour leur notification et pour les demandes d'approbation de
ces réserves,le tout sans préjudicede l'effet juridique que I'Assem-
blée généralpeourra, à sa sixièmesession, recommander d'attribuer
aux objections élevéescontre les réservesaux conventions. ii

Or, la pratique du Secrétaire général est baséenotamment sur le
principe que : nun Etat ou une organisation internationale qui accepte
!n traité consent implicitement à toute réserve à ce traité dont ledit
Etat ou ladite organisation a connaissance à ce moment ii(article IO,
paragraphe 5,du projet de convention sur le droit des traités inclus dans
le Rapport sur les traités du professeur J. L. Rrierly, préçenàéla Com-
mission du droit international lors de sa deuxiémesession, Document
A/CN.4/23, page 57, texte français). C'est conformément à ce principe
que le Secrétaire général vous a adresssa lettre du15novembre dernier.
Je vous prie d'agréer, etc.
(Sig~ié) IVAS S. KERNO,
Secrétaire généraladjoint.

Département juridique. \\'RITTES ST.ATEblEST OF THE U.S.-.AXSEXES 193

Annexed Document No.,134

LE MINISTRE DESAFF~RES OTRANCÈRES DU CAMBODGE
AU SECRÉTAIICE GÉNERAL
N" 888-%/SE
Phnom-Penh, le 6 décembre 1950.

Monsieur le Secrétaire général,
J'ai l'honneur d'accuser réceptionde votre lettre no LEG.~IS/Z/OI en
date du 15novembre 1950relative àl'adhésionduRoyaumedu Cambodge
à la Convention pour la prévention et la répressiondu crime de génocide.
Aux termes de l'avant-dernier paragraphe de votre lettre précitéevous
avez bien voulu me confirmer que le dépôtde l'instrument d'adhésioiide
mon pays a étéeffectuésans aucune observation relative aux réserves
faitespar les représentants de la Russie, de la Bulgarie et des autres pays

et que, dans ces conditions, mon Gouvernement accepte ces réserves.
Je vous remets ci-joint une copie de ma lettre no 43z-SGiS23en date
du 19 août 1950qui a spécifique le Royaume du Cambodge adhère à la
Convention pour la préventionet la répressiondu crime de génocidesans
aucune réserve.
Je précisedonc que le Royaume du Cambodge adhère purement à
cette convention sans tenir compte des réserves faitespar les représen-
tants des pays précités
Veuillez agréer, etc.
(Signé) SON-SANN.

Annexed Document No. 135

LE SECHÉTAIIII! GENÉRAL ADJOINT AU PRESIDEN DU CONSEIL MINISTRE
DES AFFAIRES ÉTKANG~RES DU CAMBODGE
LEG.318/z/o3

Le 12 janvier 1951.
Monsieur le Ministre,
Je suis chargé par le Secrétaire général d'accuser réceptide votre
lettre no 688-SG/SISdu 6 décembre1950 par laquelle vous précisezque
le Royaume du Cambodge a entendu adhérer purement à la Convention
pourla prévention et la répressiondu crime de génocidesanstenircompte
des réserves formuléesantérieurement par les gouvernements d'autres
Etats au moment de leur signature, de leur ratification ou de leur adhé-
sion h ladite convention.
Je me permets à cet égardd'attirer votre attention sur la Résolution
adoptée par l'Assembléegénérale àsa 305~~séanceplénière,le 16novem-
bre 1950, concernant les réserves aüxconventions multilatérales par
laquelle l'Assembléegénérale

<iInvite le Secrétaire général,en attendant que laCour inter-
nationale de Justice ait donnéson avis consultatif, que la Commis-
sion du droit international ait fait parvenir son rapport et que
l'Assemblée générale ait pris une nouvelle décisiona appliquer la
méthode qu'il a suiviejusqu'ici pour la réception des réservesaux
conventions, pour leur notification et pour les demandes d'approba-'94 \VRITTES STATEMEST OF THE U.S.-ASNEXES

tion de ces réserves,le tout sans préjudice de l'effet juridique que
l'Assembléegénéralepourra, à sa sixième session, recommander
d'attribuer aux objections élevéescontre les réservesaux conven-
tions.»
Or, la pratique du Secrétairegénéraelst baséenotamment sur leprincipe
que : «un Etat ou une organisation internationale quiaccepte un traité
consent imnlicitement à toute réserveàce traité clont ledit Etat ou ladite
àrganisatio; a connaissance à ce moment » (article 10, paragraphe 5,
du projet de convention sur le droit des traités inclus dans le Rapport
sur les traités du professeur J.. Brierly présenté .?la Commission du
droit international lors de sa deuxième session, document A/CN.4/23,
page 57, texte français). C'est conformément à ce principe que le Secré-
taire général vous a adresssa lettre du 15novembre dernier.
Je vous prie d'agréer,etc.

(Signé) IVAN S. KERNO,
Secrétaire généraladjoint,
Département juridique.7. IVRITTEN SST..\TE&fENTOF THE GOVERNMEXT OF
ISRAEL

By a Resolution dated 16 Novembei, 1950, the General Assembly

of the United Nations decided to request the International Court of
Justice for an aclvisory opinion on certain questions relative to
reservations to international conventions. The text of this liesolu-
tion is as follo\vs :

"The General Assembly.
Having examined the report of the Secretary-General regarding
reservations to multilateral conventions,
Considering tliat certain reservations to the Convention oii tlie
Preveiitiori and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide have been
objected to by some States,
Considerinp tliat the Interiiational T.aw Commission is studyiiig
the whole subject of the law of treaties, including the question of
reservations,
Considering tliat different views regarding reservations have been
expressed during the fifth session of tlie General Assembly, aiid
particularly in the Sixth Committee,

I. Rcyzreslsthe International Court of Justice to give an advisory
opinioii on the folloiving questions :

'In so far as concerns the Convention on the Prevention aiid
Punishmeiit of the Crime of. Genocide in the event of a State
ratifying or acceding to the Convention subject to a reservation
madeeither on ratification or on accession, or on signature follo\i~etl
by ratification :

1. Can the reseroiiig State be regarded as beiiig a party to
tlie Conventioii while still maintaining its reservation if
the reservation is objected ta by one or more of tlic
parties to the Convention but not by others ?
II. If the ansmer to <liiestioii 1 is in the affiriiiative,
what is the effcct of tlie reservation as betweeii tlie
reserving State niid ;

(a) l'lie parties wliich object to thereservatio?
(6) 'Sliose which accept it ?

Ill. What would be the legal effect as regards the ans\irer to
question 1 ifail objectioii to a reservation is made :
(a) By a sigriatory wliich Iias not yet ratified ?
(6) By a State entitled to sigii or accede but whicli Iias

iiot yet dorie so ?' ;
2. I~tvitethe International Law Commission:

(a) ln the course of its work on the codification of the lam.of
treaties, to study the question of reservations to multilateral
conventions both from tlie point of \iew of codification and fromIg6 \VRITTES STATE,\IEST OF ISRAEL

that of the progressive development of international law ; to give
priority to this study and to report thereon, especially as regards
multilateral conventions of which the Secretary-General is the
depositary, this report to he considered by the General Assembly
at its sixth session;
(b) In connexion with this study, to take accou~itof al1 the
views expressed during the fifth session of the General Assembly,
and particularly in the Sixth Committee ;

the.advisos. opinion by the International Court of Justice, the
receipt of a report from the International Law Commission and
further action by the General Assembly, to followhis prior prac-
tice with respect to the receipt of reservations to coriventions

thereof, al1 without prejudice to the legal effect of objections to
reservations to coiiveritions as it may be recommended by the
General Assembly at its sixth session."

2. It is not necessary here to do more than describe succinctly
tlie background of the present problem. The Convention on the
I'rcvention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted
at the 179th plenary meeting of the General Assembly on g Decem-

ber, 1948. Resolution 260 (Ill) bringing this about provided :
"The General Assembly,
.4$firovesthe annexed Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and proposes it for signature
and ratification or accession in accordance with its Article XI."

(This is followed by tlie annex containing the full text of the
Convention.)
The said Article XI establishes various ways by which States
Members of the United Xations, and any non-member State invited
to do so by the GeneralAssemblyl, can become parties to the Conven-
tion, i.e. legally bound by its terms. Article XII1 deals with the

coming into force of this Convention ninety days after the first
twenty instruments of ratification or accession have been deposited
with the Secretary-General. Additional functions of a ministerial
character, similar to those normally exercised by a depositary
govcrnment, are coiiferred iipoti the Secretary-Gencral by Art-
icle XVII. The attention of the Court is also drawn to the terms of
Article XVIII under which tlic original of the present Convention
shall ùc deposited.in the archives of the United Nations. Although
tlie original of the treaty is thus deposited with the Organization as
a wliole, the functions of the depositary govcrnment are to be

esercised by the Secretary-General.
3. In the period between the adoption of the Convention by
the General Assembly on g Ilecember. 1948, and the opening of the
--
' As to thisseeResoliition 368 (IV) adoptat the 266th plenary meetingon
3 December, r94g. WRITTES SWTEJfE.ST OF ISRAEL I97

fifth session of the General Assembly, several States signed the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide or acceded to it subject to certain reservations, while
other States not only signed the said Convention but ratified it,
or acceded to it, in some cases before the existence of these reser-
vations had been communicated to them. During that period, States

which ratified or acceded to the Convention were potential contract-
ing parties, for, as the Convention had not then corne into force,
thcy were not, nor could they have been contractually bound by its
terms. Among the States which had signed and ratified the Genocide
Convention in that period is Israel, \rrhoseinstrument of ratification

was deposited with the Secretary-General on g Afarch, 1950. The
action of the Secretary-General in regard to the problem posed by '
these reservations in these, and in similar circumstances, has been
described in various documents and articles, including in particular
the Annual Report of the Secretary-General to the fifth session of
the General Assembly, Uoc. A/1287, at p. 122 ; the Secretary-
General'sreport entitled "Reservations toMultilateralConrentions",

Doc. A11372(which contains, in pp. 28-40, a valuable memorandum
.on the subject presented by the United Kingdom), and articles
such as Schachter's "The Ilevelopment of International Law
through the Legal Opinions of the United Nations Secretariat", in
British Year Book of International Law, Vol. 25 (1948), gr, parti-
cularly at pp. 122 ff.,and Liang's "Notes on Legal Questions

concerning the United Nations" in American Journal of Inter-
national Law, Vol. 44 (1950). 100, at p. 117.

4. It is not desired here to comment directly upon this practice
.as described in the quoted documents and articles. However, it will
be noted that the Secretary-General placed the matter upon the

.agenda of the fifth session of the General Assembly as a general
problem which faces him \vhilstexercisine his functions as deoositarv

~ ~ ~ ~ - ~- ~ ~ --~- ~
have bien concluded under the auspices of the United Nations.
True, he did draw particular attention to the problem because of

.what was happening in connexion with the Genocide Convention,
having regard to that Convention's provisions about its coming
into force. To a certain extent the carlier and more important stage
.ofthe debate in the Çixth Committec was marked by someconfusion
between the gcncral aspect andthe particular aspect of the Genocide
Convention. It is not irrelcvant, indeed, to point out that at one

stage it ivas proposcd to ask the Conrt for an advisory opinion
couched in more general terms without mentioning any particular
convention, but on 17 October, 1950, previous proposals were
replaced by a joint draft resolution (A/C.~/L.I~~),out of which the
present text emerged. This, sponsored by thirteen Powers. refcrred
specifically to the Genocide Convention. However, while the discus-lgS WRITTEN STATEIENT OF ISRAEL
sions were proceeding in the Sixth Committee it was announced
that the necessary number of unconditional ratifications or acces-

sions to the Genocide Convention had been deposited and tliat on
14 October, 1950, the $rocks-verbalhad been drawn up in conformity
with Article XII1 of the Convention. In accordance with its terms.
the Convention entered into force on 12 Jannary, IgjI, upon which
date al1the potentialcontracting parties which areenumerated in the
said $racés-verbalb , ecame actual contracting parties '.The drawing
up of the $racés-verbalhad therefore solved the problem of the

coming into force of the Convention, although the problem of the
legal consequences arising from the deposit of the instrument of
ratification of the Philippines and the instrument of accession of
Bulgaria, both of which included reservations which had met with
objections from one Member State, still remained to he settled.
(A/C.6/SR.zzz.) It is a matter for regret that the resolution, as.
finally adopted by the General Assembly, did not sufficiently reflect

either the general nature of the problem as originally placed before
it or the change in the circumstances surrounding the particular
problem of the Genocide Convention after the procès-verbalhad
been drawn up. Thefact that the Genocide Convention entered intrr
force on 12 January, 1951, may have the consequence that the
problem, at al1 events in so far as concerns possible and potential
contracting parties, has become to a certain extent an abstract one
to be considered in relation to the general exercise of fiinctions as.

depositary of international conventions by the Secretary-General.
This observation does not, however, apply to the questions included
in group III, which refer to possible contracting parties only.

j. In suggesting in this way that the question before the Court
is to a certain extent abstract, it is not intended to cast any doubt
upon the jurisdiction of the Court to render an advisory opinion. 111
its Advisory Opinion of 28 hlay, 1948. on Admission a/ a State 10
the United h'atioïzs (Clznrter,Art. 4) : I.C.J. Reports 1948, p. 57,
the Court dealt with the contentioii that a question which must he
regarded as a $olilical one falls oiitsidc the jiirisdiction of the Court.

In rejecting this contention it was said, at page 61 :
"The Court cannot attrihute a political character to a request
which, framed in abstract terms, invites it to undertake an essen-
tially juclicialtask, the interpretation of a treaty provision. It is not
concerned witli the motives which may have inspired this request
.... It is the duty of the Court to envisage the question submitted
to it only in the abstractform which has been aven toit."

Agnin, in its Advisory Opinion of 3 March, 1950, on the Coiiz-
$ete+zceO/ the Assenzblyrcgardi+zg adnrissioitto the fizited Natio?tsr

The cnumrrntion appearç not in the procès-oerbol itself, but in the coverinp
letter of October 19th. 1950, addressed by the Secretdry-General to al1 States
in\-ited to çigor nccede tothe Convention. Sre supro. pp.11,. iiz and 113.
irj, 116 and IL,, anncxed Dac. r,2 and 4. WRITTES ST.XTE>IEST OF ISRAEI. 199

I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 4, the Court recalled, at p.6,bothits prcvious
opinion and Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of the Statute
according to wliich it may give an opinion on any legal question.
Similar considerations can bc applied in the present casc, cvcn if
some of the questions before the Court be rcgarded as abstract.
This aspect is particularly brought to the notice of the Court
becaiise of the terms of Article 1X of the Genocide Convention
itself, which provides :

"Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the inter-
including,those relating to the responsihility of a State for genocide
or for any of the other acts cnumerated in Article III, shall be
submitted to the Interiiational Court of Justice at the reqiiest of
any of the parties to the dispute."

As far as the Goverliment of Israel is conccrned, it kiiow of no
dispute-it is certainly part!' to none-with an? other of the

ative of Israel during the 224th meeting of the sixth Committce on
18 October, 1950 :

"This legal question cannot be solved under Article 1X of the
Convention, since it is not a dispute between parties, but a legal
question concerning those wlio aspire to become parties as well as
those who have already become parties. Therefore Article 37 of the
Statute, of which ArticleIS of the GenocideConventionis nothing
but an application, does not corneinto account."
6. The Resolutioii of 16 November, 1950, does tliree things :

first, it requests the Court to give an advisory opinion, sccondly, it
invites the International Law Commission to take certain action,
and, thirdly, it gives interim instructions ta the Sccrctary-General
to be observed pending thc rendering of the advisory opinioii by the
International Court of Justicc, the receipt of a report from the
International Law Commission and further action by the General
Assembly. The second rccital of the resolution : "Considcring that
certain reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crimc of Genocide have been objected to by
some States", is the basic recital which is of concern to the Intcr-
national Court of Justice. Despite some obscnrity in its phrasing, it
contains the essence of the questions referred to the Court, namely :
are reservations admissible in the case of this Convention ;and if so,
what are the conseqiiences if some States object thereto. By "some

States" is obviously meant "some States which stand in a certain
rclationsliip to the Convention, so that they have the legal right to
object to reservations which may be made to it by other States".
The precise meaiiing of this phrase, as well as the general question
of the admissibility of reservations, will be discussed more fully
later in this statement. On the other hand this recital does iiot200 \\'RITTES STATEZlEST OF ISRAEL
invite the Court to consider the effect of those "certain reservations"

which have already been made. l'et, although this is a subjective
matter for the parties or prospective parties, and not an objective
matter for the consideration of the Court, the problem as a whole
has to be considered "in so far as concerns the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide". This makes
it necessary to go beyond the mechanical and ministerial problems
inherent in this aspect, and to examine the more fundamental
aspect of the application of the rules to the Convention itself, and
the consequences thereof. In other words the starting point for the
examination is the Convention itself and not this or that reservation
that may have been in the past or may be in the future proposed by
a State as a condition for its acceptance of the stipulations of the
Convention. The opinion of the Court will tlierefore be of the

greatest importance, for it will establish the legal framework within
which the subjective element of the parties' will is to operate.
7. The words "ratification" and "accession" appearing in the
Resolution also require further precisioii. Having regard to the

terms of Article XII1 of the Convention the words express different
ideas according to whether the actions they describe are performed
before or after the Convention has come into force ; that is to Say,
according to whether the ratifications or accessions in question
are included in the first twenty of such actions or not. Under the
scheme of the Convention three categories ofStates can be envisaged,
namely : possible contracting parties, potential contracting parties
and actual contracting parties. Possible contracting parties are
States which, under the terms of the Convention, are entitled to
sign and ratify, or accede to it. Until they ratify or accede to it,
their interest in the Convention is inchoate only. Potential con-
tracting'parties are those possible contracting parties which actually
ratify or accede to the Convention before it has come into force.

By so doing they not only take a necessary step to make the
Convention binding upon them : they also perform a necessary
action to bring the Convention into force in relation to themselves
and the other nineteen potential contracting parties which together
malie up the twenty required to bring the Convention into force at
all. Actual contracting parties are those States whose ratifications
or accessions are subsisting when the Convention itself is in force.
In this statement it is necessary to consider the problems raised
by the request for the advisory opinion in relation to al1 three
categories of States.

8. The Convention itself presents three particular eharactenstics
which, as the questions before the Court have to be considered
"in so far as concerns the Convention", are of relevance.

g. The first of these characteristics is that the stipulations of the
Convention are of three distinct kinds, that is to Say, normative, WRITTE'I STATEXE'IT OF ISRAEL 201

contractual and ministerial. The normative character of the Conven-
tion as a whole is demonstrated bvthe first recital of the ~reambie
and by the confirmation containid in the first article of 'the text.
According to these :

"The Contracting Parties,
Having considered the declaration made by the GeneralAssembly
of the United Nations in its Resolution 96 (1) dated II December,
1946. that genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to

the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the
civilized world 1 ;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Article I

'I'hcC'oi~tr~ctinP çarties coniirni tIi;igciiocide,\\.lit:~licroiiiiiiittc~l
iiitinieof ~,t.:iccoriritiinr of \wr, ii.t<:riine under intcriiatioii:~lI:,w
which thëy undertake to prevent and punish."

Following on this declaration and confirmation the Convention
proceeds to define the characteristics of geuocide as a crime under

international law (Articles II and III), the persons who shall be
punished therefor (Article. IV), and the competent tribunal to
try such acts (Article VI). However, the purpose of the Convention
is not merely to establish the legal nature of the crime and the
manner of its punishment. As is clearly stated in Article 1 the con-

tracting parties also undertake to prevent and punish it. The
Convention also contains, therefore, contractual stipulations to
implement this undertaking. In Article V is found a unilateral

The fulltext of this Resolution i:

is the dçnial of the right toliveghoffin<lividuul humair beings :such denialomofithe
right of existenceshocks the conscience of mankind, reçults ingreat losses to human-
ity in the form of cultural and other contributions represented by theçc hiiman
groups, and is contrary to moral law and tu the s~irit and aims of the United

"The Gçneral Assembly, therefore,
"ilfhrms that genacidc iç a crime under internationallaw which thecivilize<l ~vorld
condemns, and for the commission of which principals and accomplices-ivhrthçr
private individuals, public ofhcials or statesmen,andwhether the crime is commiitç<l
on religious, racial, politicorany other grounds-are punishable ;
"Invites the hlember States to ena~t the nrcçssnrg lcgislationforthe prçrçntiuii
and piinishment of this crime;
"Recommends that international co-operation bc organized betwren States rvith
n view to facilitatingthe speedy prevention and punishment of the crime of gcnu-
cide. and, to this end.
"Requests the Economic and Social Council to undertake the necessary studics,
with a view to drawing up adraft convention on the crime of genocide to be submit-
ted to the next regular session of the General Assembly."
This Resolution >vasreaffimed in Resalution 180 (11) adopted by thç Gençral
Assembly un 21 Novrmber, ,947.202 IVRITTES ST.+TE%IEKT OF ISRAEL
obligation imposed upon every contracting party to enact certain
necessary legislation, thereby re-enforcing an invitation first made
in Resoliition 96 (1). Article VI1 contains a multilateral pledge
about extradition, while Article IX specifies contractual stipula-
tions about the settlement of certain disputes betmeen the contract-

ing parties. The ministerial stipiilations about the entry into force
of the Convention and the duties of the Secretary-General of the
United Nations as depositary, as well as the territorial application
of the Conveiition, are contained in ArticlesX to XIX. The norm-
ative character of the Convention as a whole is further seen in the
fact that the expression "contracting parties" does not appear in
the criicial Articles II, III, IV, VI (first clause) and VI1 (first
sentence).

IO. As will be shewii later in this statement, itis believed that
the. essential legal characteristic of reservations is that they are of
a contractual nature. From this it follows that they are especially
appropriate to international stipulationsof a contractualcharacter.
Their aptness in international conveiitions of a normative and
constitutive character is less apparent.True, it can be argued that
international legislation rests entirely upon a coiiventional or
contractual basis, and that international law does not have different

rules for the different kinds of treaty. It is doubtful, however, if
iiitcrnationallaw to-day adopts so rigid an attitude. It is considered
more in harmony with developments over the last fifty years to
state that prinz aaci reservations are out of place when proposed
in relation to normative and constitutive stipulations. For a State
cannot outlaw itself, which is what it would do if it were to proclaini
certain dcclared legal norms to bc inapplicable to it. This is, of
course, always subject to the express attitude of the other parties,
for it lies with them to agree to permit what may be otherwise
inherently forbidden. This, itideed, is expressly recognized in the
SccretaryGeneral's report (A/r372), particularly in paragraphs 29
to 36, where the requirement of unanimons consent to reservations
is forcefully examined. The theory here put forth is viridly illus-
trated in its application to the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The normative articles of
the Convention purport tostate and do state international criminal
norms. These norms are uniformly biiiding on al1 States, whether
or not they are parties to the Coiivention, as tnuch as any other
iiorm of international law, and this is not diminished bythe possib-

ility and probability of varying interpretations of these norms.
111other words, a State's liability to CO-operate in the prevention
and.punishment of genocide is not necessarily dependent upon
whether that State is a party to the Convention, with or without
reservations. The mutual undertakiiigs which the contractual
stipulations of the Convention establish are concerned only with
extradition (Article 1'11) and the settlement of certain disputes204 WRITTES STATEMENT OF ISRAEL

act which, in addition to establishing the final text, also specifies
the States which participated therein. It may be questioned whether
this is, indeed, a desirable technique in treaty drafting, unless there
are special circumstaiices to justify it. For a;n example of a case
in which special circumstances existed, reference can be made to

the General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the
United Xations (United iVations Treaty Series, Vol. 1, p. 15). 'Shat
Convention has no coritracting parties at ail, although "accession"
toit is made hy tleposit of ailinstrumentwith the Secrctary-Gcneral.
'Shedifference hct\vceii that Convention and the Gcnocide Conven-
tion can be explainecl hy the fact that the General Convention on

the Privilcges and Immunities of the United Natioris \vas designed
particularly to iml~lemcntArticle Ioj of the Charter aiid is probably
limited in its effect to conferringrights anddutiesupon theindividiial
Members of the United Nations in their relations to the Organiz-
ation as a whole (seeClive Parry, "The Treaty-inaking Powr ofthe

United Xations", in British Year Book of I~ilern~~lionalLaw,
Vol. 26 (1949), 10s. nt p. 1.13)w ;hereas the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Gciiocide, in addition
to its normative character, confers mutual rights and duties or1its
contracting parties, so that the relation of this Convention to the
Charter of the United Nations is possibly inciderital, even if the

conclusioii thereof cati he related to certairi of the purposes of the
United Nations as mcntioned iii Articles I and 55 of the Cliartcr, or
to the operative parts of the General Asseinbly's Rcsoliition 96 (1).

12. The prohleiii of ascertaining what States are parties to

conventioiis of the type here heing considered arises ~>articularly
from the practice which has beeii adopted by the United Nations.
As far as concerns conventions concluded under the auspices of the
United Xations, the practicc hitherto observed discloses tliat such
conventions are iiormally open for signature followed by ratification

to al1Members of the United Xations, including States which hcconie
Xernbers of the United Xations after the date of the opening of thc
Convention to signature ;and that accessioii to the Convention hy
non-mernber States depends upon the extension to them of an
invitation by the Ccricral Assemhlv or an orgari authorizcd hy it '.
Does a stipiilatiori sucli as this make thosc States to which it

refers parties to thc Convention for the purpose of conscntirig to
proposed reservatioiis cvcn hcfore they have ratifieclthc Convciitioii ?
It is siibmittcd that the answer to this question is in the negative.
--
See for example :rirtiçlo SI of the Cun\.ention the I'rcvrntion and I'uiiisli-
inçnt of the Crimc of (;enocid:thc reviscd ;\rticl43 of the (;ri:eral .\ct foi the
ihe Convention un the International TransmissioofçSei\-and the RightiofCorrcc-f
tion, Resolutioi277 (111): r\rtiç23 of the Convrntioiiforthe Supprçsçionof the
Trafic in Fersonç antl of the Exploitation ofthe ProstitutofnOthcrs. Ilçsuliitioii
317 (IV) :Article 13 of the Cunvçntion on the 1)eclarntion of [kathof .\lissing
Persons of 6 :\pril.igjo: and so on. WRITTEN STATEXEST OF ISRAEL 205

Apart from the fact that, having regard to Article 4 of the Charter,
the body of Mcmhers of the CTnitedNations cannot be regarded as
fixed, and apart from the extension of invitations to non-member
States it is believed that, pnor to ratification or accession, that is
prior to thedate upon which, to use the tcrminology here proposed
to describe the scheme of the Genocide Convention, a State becomes
a potential or actual contracting party, such States have no more
than an inchoate interest in the terrns of the treaty. By virtue of
this inchoate interest these States are entitled to be informed by
the depositary government or organization of reservations propoçed
hy other States entitled to become parties to the Convention, for
indeed their own intentions as toratification may beaffected thereby.

But so long asthey themselves have not substantiated their inchoate
rights by ratifying the Convention, thereby becoming potential or
actual contracting parties, their objection to the proposed reserv-
ations does not affect the validity of the reservation. If, however, in
due course such States object to the said reservations at a time
when by ratification or accession they havc become potential or
actual contracting parties, tben the Convention cannot be regarded
as being in force as between the reserving State and the State or
States which object to the said reservations. In this connexion
there is seeii to bc no essential difference betwccn the position of a.
signatory mhich has not yet ratified, and a 5tate which is entitled.
to sign or accede but which ha not yet done so. Hoth these types:
of States arc possible contracting parties, and as none of these:
States is a party to the Convention, no State in either of these

categories can affect the corning into force of the Convention by
objecting to proposed reservations, or affect the status of States
already parties to the Convention when it itself becomes a party
thereto. On the other hand, such States are entitled, by objecting
to the reservation, to suspend the application of the Conveiition
between themselves and the rescrving State, should they siib-
sequently decide to ratify or accede to it.

13. The third characteristic is that the Convention contains no
provision whatsoever rcgarding signature and ratification or acces-
sion subject to reservation. That being so, it will be necessary to
consider as a gencral problem the question of the adrnissibility of
reservations in any rnultilateral convention which is silent on the
question of reservations, and then apply the conclusions reached to

the Genocide Convention, that is to say to consider the consequences
which floiv from objections to admissible reservations. In the terms
of the request for the advisory opinion the General Assembly seems
to have realized the existence of three distinct possibilities in this
regard. They are : reservations made on (a) ratification; (b) acces-
sion ;and (cj signature to be followed by ratification. However,
having regard to the scheme of the Genocide Convention, as pre-
riously explained this requires to be restated as reservations pro--206 WRIREX STATEMENT OF ISRAEI.

posed by possible, potential and actual contracting parties, and,
as a corollary, objections by possible, potential and actual contrac-
ting parties to such reservations. The geiieral conclusions about
the admissibility of reservations can be summarized as being :

(a) The Convention itself must not be of a naturc to preclude
reservations and furthermore it must iiot explicitly forbid
them ;and
(b) Reservations are not norinally admissible to stipulations of a
normative or constitutive character, but should be limited to
the purely contractual undertakings ;and

(c) Advance notification of the proposed reservation should be
giveii in adequatetime so that the othercontracting parties-
in tlie present context this certainly includes the actual
contracting parties and probably the potential contracting
parties as well-may have opportunity to object to the said
reservation.

As to the legal effect of an admissible reservation, the vie\\.
expressed by the Secretary-General in A/137z, that :
"A State may make a reservation when signing, ratifying or
accediiigto a convention, prior to its entry into force,only with the
consentof al1States whichhave ratified or accededthereto up tothe
date of entry into forceand may do so after tlie date of entry into
force only with the consent of al1 States which have tlieretofor
ratified or acceded."

is inpriiiciple correct. One result of this is that the consequencc of a
Statc objecting to a proposed reservation is to defer theentry into
force of the Convention until either the reservatioii is withdrawn
or the consent given, or the requisite number of States accept the
proposed reservation. It is not necessary to cxpatiate on this point
as the Convention entered into force on 12 January, 1951 H.owever,
thc second result to be considered is the effect of objections to
reservations made after the coming into force of the Convention.
The ministerial functions to be performed bythe depositary govern-
ment or by the Secretary-General when thc United Nations is

acting as depositary are conseqiiently concerned with the solicita-
tion of such approvals to reservations as are necessary under this
riile, which appro\~als may be implied, expressed, or tacit.

14. A reservation has been defined in the following terms :
"La réserve, c'estla déclarationfaite par un Etat partie à un
traité portant qu'il entend exclure une disposition de ce traité, en
modifier la portéeou lui attribuer un sens déterminé.Plus briève-
ment, on peut dire que c'est une stipulationdérogato!re à la régle-
mentation générale .... C'est un,mode unilatéralde limitation des
effetsdu traité,formulépar les Etats contractants avant son entrée
en vigueur." Rousseau, Princifies gé~céraudl1 Droit international
public, Vol.1(1944) P~. 290. WRITTES STATEMEST OF ISRAEI. 207

See also Accioly, Tratado de Direito Iïrternricioïial Ptiblico,
l'al. z, p. 400;Anzilotti, Cozirsde Droit interrtational.Vol. 1, p. 399 ;
Basdevant, "La Conclusion et la Rédaction des Traités ct des
Instruments diplomatiques autres que les Traités" in Kecz~eildes
Cozirs, Vol. 15, 539, at 1'. 597 ; Bustamante, Droit international
public, Vol. 3, p. 430 : Fauchille, Traité de Droit international
pnblic, \'ol. 1, Part 3, p. 312 : Frangulis, Théorieet prrrtiqnedes
Traités internationazlx, at p. 71 ;Genet, Truitéde Diplomatie et de
Droit diplonzatiqzre, Vol. 3,. p. 455 ; Guggenheim, Lehrbrbch des

l'oelkerrechts, Vol. I, p. 76 ; Hackworth. Digest of International
Law, \'ol.j., p. I~I, quotirig the Harvard Draft Conve~ilionon the
Law of Treaties, Article 13 ;etc. Special attention is also drawn to
the manner in nfhich Hyde puts the matter. In his I~iternatioizal
Law, Vol. 2,p. 1435, he wrote :
"The practice of States seemingly rejects the conclusior>that a
reservation must be confinedto a proposa1 or condition that lessens
the scope of burdens set forth in a text in relation to the reserving
State. There are instances where a reservation has served to modify
hy enlargement obligations to be borne by other parties or pros-
pective parties in relation to the reserving State."

See also Brierly, Report on Law of Treaties, prepared for the
International Law Commission (A/CN.4/23, paragraphs 84 ff.). A
reservation in this sense is essentially of a contractual nature. It
has to be distinguished froin the type of stipulation, sometimes
found in multilateral conventions, which introduces limitations
upon the breadth of basic provisions. Stipulations of this nature
are also occasionally denominated "reservations" : cf. Syslematic

Szirvey of Treaties for the Pacific Settlement of Inter?tational Disputes
1928-194 8U.N. Publication, Sales No. 1949, V. 3), at p. 23. This
nomenclature is, however, misleading, for the essential feature of
these limitationsis that they form part of the substantive provisions
of the convention itsclf and are therefore not necessarily limited to
stipulations of a contractual nature ; whereas we are concerned
not with any conditions which form part of the substantive provi-
sions of the Convention itself, and thence binding ipso facto on al1
the contracting parties, but with additional and extraneous condi-
tions imposed or desired to he imposed by one of the contracting
parties in connexion with the application to itself of the Convention

in question. The reser\latioii is thus unilateral in the sense that it is
put fonvard unilaterally. Its acceptance by other States may
transform it into a hilateral or multilateral stipulation.
Ij. The right to make reservations derives from that one of the

,,tributes of statehood \\,hich is summed up in the expression
treaty-making power". "C'est (la) possibilité de .... prendre soi-
merne des décisions,notamment en matière de relations et de trac-
tations internationales, ou d'un 'mot, en matière de treaty-mnking
flower, qui caractérise ce rlu'oii appelle un État, et uii État souve-20s WRlTTES STATEblEST OF ISRAEL

rain." From the oral statemeiit by Professor Scelle before the Court
in connexion with the advisory opinion on Admission of a State
to the United Nations ; Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Documents,
at p. 67. This, no doiibt, is the axiomatic starting point for the
view expressed in Lauterpacht-Oppenheim, International Law,
Vol. I (7th Ed.), p. 821, where it is written: "A State in signifying
its consent to a treaty may wish (italics supplied) not to be bound

by a particular provision contained in it." Cf. also Sir Arnold
McNair, The Law of Trecities, p. 105. Arising from this, as the
learned editor of Oppenheim's International Law points out, loc.
cit., is an "important question of principle" :

"A reservatioii is, upori analysis, the refusai of an offer and the
making ofa freshoffer.Tliereforein principleit sFemsnecessarythat
the other party sliould consent to the reservation eithe~expressly
or hy implication arisingfrom acquiescence,and practice accords
with this view."

See also Anzilotti, op. cit.. at p. 400, and Malkiir, "Keservations
to Multilateral Conventions" in British Yeav Book of I+cterttational
Law, Vol. 7 (1926), p. 141. This contractual theory of the nature
of reservation explains and justifies both the operation of the
subjective will \$,hich enables the reserving State to propose its
reservation, and the legal right of the other contracting States to
give their consent or to object thereto. As the reservation, if effect-
ive, imports changes in the treaty obligations of the various
parties it would be redundant to explain why their consent is neces-
sary at all, a matter to which al1 the writers refer : e.g. Accioly,
loc.cit.; Bustamante, op. cit., p. 432 :Hackworth, op. cit., p. 104 ;
Hudson, "Reservations to Xultipartite Internatioiial Instruments"

in American Jozcrnalof International 'aw, Vol. 32 (1938), p. 330 ;
Hyde, op. cit., p. 1438; Liang. op. cit., at p. 117; Îvfalkin,op. cit.,
at p. 141 ; Rousseau, op. cit., p. 296 ; Sanders, "Keservations to
Multilateral Treaties made in the Act of Ratification or Adherence",
Alnerican Jotirnal of Intentational Law, Vol. 33 (1939). p. 488 ;
Schachter, op. cit., at p. 122 ; etc. As to the existeilce of implied
consent, and the requirements of time which will lead to the
presumption of consent, sce in particular Guggenheim, op. cit., at
11.78; Hackworth, op. cit., p. 130, and Rousseau, op. cit., at p. 292.
A State cannot be compelled to assuine, in whole or in part, binding
obligations arising ex co%tractz~ by which it is ~iot willing to be

bound; nor can othcr States be compelled to accept obligations
deriving from unilateral declarations hy other States which are, or
wlrich intend to be, parties to a given international convention. This
proposition is the easiest illustrated by reference to bilateral conven-
tions. Thus, in the arbitratioii betwen Great Rritain and Costa
Rica in the Tinoco Case on 18 October, 1923, a reservation to the
Special Agreement was made by Costa Rica on ratification. Great
Rritain expressly accepted the said reservation : I Reports of WRITTES STATENENT OF ISRAEL 209

I?~ternationalArbitral Awards, 369, at p. 374. The same principle
is operative in regard to multilateral conventions, although, as
Lauterpacht-Oppenheim ]>oints out, lac. cit.,p. 822, fn. I, the
"mechanical difficulty" may be greater in the case of multilateral
conventions.
16. This contractual character of reservations furthermore

explains why it is necessary for the convention expressly to forbid
reservations it is intended' to cxclude al1 possibility thereof. An
example of this is afforded by the unratified Declaration of London
conceming the laws of maritime war of 26 February, 1909 (which
although in form normative was actually in essence a contractual
bargain representing a compromise between the legal expositions
of conîiicting military intcrests). Article 65 of this 1)eclaration
stipulated : "The provisions of the present Declaratiun must be
treated as a whole and cari not be separated." A reservation to
such a stipulation is inadmissible not because of any inherent
sanctity in this particular type of clause, but becausc othenvise
violence would be done to the principle of effectiveness and the
cogcnt requirement of good faith, which form the basis for the law
of treaties. It might be objected that abuse of the right to make

reservations would destroy the principle of effectivencss. This may
be true : but the non-existence of legal rights, in this case the right
to make reservations, cannot be deduced from the abuse thereof,
and the prohlem can only be solved by a law-creating agency, and
not by a law-applying agency such as the Court. Although the
view here put forward as to the admissibility of reservations is
occasionally challenged, it is submitted that the existence of this
rule is in fact adequately demonstrated by the practice of States
to \\.hich many references are made in the doctrinal literature
quoted herein.

17. For the same reasoii, in order that the forniulation of a
reservation be valid, adequate advance notification of the reserv-
ntion has to be given. This ensures that the other parties to the
convention have the opportunity to consent or object to the pro-
posetl reservation. In what might be termed the normal case there
will elapsc a period of time between the formal ceremony of signa-
ture and the coming into force of the convention with a deposit
of a predetermined number of instruments of ratification or acts
of acccssion. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly common for the
coming into force of the convention to be deferred to a pre-deter-

inined date after the deposit of the requisite number of instruments
of ratification or acts of acccssion. In the case of the Convention
on the Prevcntion and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, for
cxample, this date is, as we have seen, ninety days after the deposit
of the twcntieth instrument of ratification or act of accession.
Where the convention itself fixes such period of time, it is submitted
that such period as is fixed by the convention constit~ites adequate210 WRITTEK STATEIIENT OF ISRAEL
advance notice, and that the depositary government or orgaiiizatioii

will properly discharge its ministerial functions in relation to the
convention in question if it makes its disl>ositions for solicitiiig the
approval of the other contracting parties or, before the convention
has come into force, the potential contracting parties, dependent
upon the period fixed in the convention. On the other hand, this
task must not be performed mechanically. Regard must also be
had for the efficacy of the means of communication at the disposal
of the depositary governrnent or organization. A condition of
turbulence, national or international: may disrupt the means of
communication. The riile is probably sufficieiitly flexible to over-
come difficulties arising under this head.

IS. There exists, however, a patent source of difficulty in cases

where the convention itself is open for signature for a long period
of time, during the running of which some States might not only
sign, but also deposit their instruments of ratification of the conven-
tion, or accede to it before other States sign the said convcntiori,
thereby also making kiiown their reservations. This is what has
happened in regard to the Genocide Convention, for this Conven-
tion Gas open for signature by States Rlembers of the United
Nations and other States invited to do so for a period exceeding
twelve months, i.e. from its adoption by the General Assembly on
9 December, 1948. until 31 December, 1949, in accordance with
Article XI of the Convention. After I January, 1950, such States
can only accede to the Convention."L'hat being so it is suggested
that the requirement of adequate notice operates in these instances
in the following way : Where the sigiiing was accompanied with

notification of a reservation, other States which deposit their
instruments of ratification or acts of accession before the expiration
of ninety days from the day of the sigiiing accompanied by reserv-
ation are presumed to have completed the forinalities ofratification
or accession required by their domestic law without knowledge of
the reservations. In other words, the depositary governrnent or
organization is then under the duty, in the exercise of its minis-
terial functions, of soliciting the approval of such States, and the?
have the right to object to the proposed reservations. But where
the instrument of ratification or act of accession is deposited after
the expiration of the said period, the depositary government or
organization will be entitled to presuine that the constitutional
processes of ratification or accession were operated in the knowledge
of the proposed reservation, so that no fiirther niinisterial functions

in this regard are required. In other words a temporal order of
cvents-reservation followed by ratification-will give rise to the
presumption of consent. In this connexion it may be pointed out
that no consent is required by any State where a proposed 1eser1.-
ation is subsequently withdrawn by the receiving State. When
this happens, to use the analysis of Lauterpacht-Oppenheim, the WRITTES STATEMEST OF ISRAEL 211

offer formerly refnsed is subsequently accepted, so that the fresh
offer implied in the proposed-reservation lapses. Thus it has been
held in an international arbitration that an unconditional ratifica-
tion, after a reservation formulated at the signing, has the effect
of waiving the proposed'reservation : Germari-Portuguese Arbitra-
tion of 16 February, 1933, regarding the execution of the German-
Portuguese Arbitral Award of 30 June, 1930, in 3 Reports of Inter-
national Arbitral. rlwards 1371, at pp. 138415 The ministerial
functions then consist of notifying the withdrawal of the reserv-
ation.

19. These remarks make it necessary to mention briefly. the
.question of the times at \\,hich a reservation may be properly

formulated, because of the influence which the timing has on the
problem. The \~liole object of formulating riiles as to timing is to
facilitate thc solicitatioii of approval to reservations on the part of
the interestcd States. This, again, is closely related to the essentially
contractual tiatiirc of reservations. The primordial requirement 1s
that the terms of the reservation should he formally made known
hefore the convention becomes binding upon the State desirous of
making the reservation. Ho\\- this is to be done depends in the
ultimatc resort upon the terms of the convention itself, and is
closely connected with the principle of effectiveness coupled \rith
the requirement of good faith mhich form the basis of the lan.
relating to treaties generally. The problem is thiis simpler where the
convention itself provides for a fixed period hetween the deposit
of the instrument of ratification or act of accession and its coining

into force in relation to the ratifying or acceding State-as is the
case of the Gciiocide Convention-for this period can be pro1)erly
utilized by the dcpositary government or organization to solicit the
approval of other interested States to the proposcd reservations.
\I'here there is no fixed period such as this, then. it is submitted,
the vietvs expressed earlier as to the necd for adequate advance
notification are applicable. In the light of these general consider-
ations, four specific mutually excliisive possibilities are seen to
exist, namely : the reservation may be forinulated and notified on
one only of the following occasions: (a) prior to the signature ;
(b) at signature; (c) concomitant mith the deposit of the instrument
of ratification;(d) at accession or adherence. The commonly accep-
ted rule that the absence of protestation is to bc takeii as acceptance
or recognition of a given situation, leads to the conclusion that

ratification of a convention or accession thereto by a State acting
in the knowledge of reservations proposed by other States as condi-
tions to their becoming parties to the saine convention must bc
taken to imply the consent of the ratifying or acceding States to
the terms of the proposed reservation. And on the other hand it
follows that States which ratify or accede to international conven-
tions without knonlcdge of proposed reser\wtions, either because212 WRITTES STATEZIEST OF ISRAEL

the formulation thereof inay not have reached them when their
fornialities of ratification or of accession rvere proceeding or because
the said reservations had not been made public before the instru-
ment of ratification or the act of accession was deposited aith the
depositary government or organization, cannot be presumed to
have given their consent to any proposed reservation. In their
case it is incnmhent upon the depositary government or organiz-
ation to solicit the approval of each such State, with the corollary
that such States have the right to object to such reservations.
'This illustrates the essential difference between implied consent,
which dcrives from a certain calendarial relation between the
formulation of the reservation and the deposit of the instrument

of. ratification or act of accession, and express consent which is.
necessary when thereexistsanother calendarial relation, i.e. between
the deposit of the instrument of ratification or act of accession and
the formulation of the reservation. In other words, consent will be
implied if the order of eveiits is : reservation-ratification, and
only in those circumstances. Implied consent is iiot to be confused
~vith tacit consent, which is presumed ta have beengiven when
the depositary government or organization, in soliciting the views
of the various parties to the Convention, imposesa time-limit within
which the replies of such States are requested to be made, and no
reply is in fact made \rithin that the-limit.

zo. A reservation, admissible under the terms of the Convention
made at the appropriate tinie and in the appropriate form, will be

effective when it receives the consent of thc other parties to the
Convention. This gives rise to two problems. The first is : what
States are, for this purpose, considered to he parties. This has been
answered above. The second problein is : what is the effect of an
objection, that is to say a refusa1 of consent on the part of a State
entitled so to do. Obviously the Convention does not come into
force between the reserving State and the State objecting to the
reservations. But what has to be considered isnot the non-operation
of the Convention as between the reserving State and potential
or actual contracting parties \\.hich object to the proposed reserv-
ation. The real problem is xvhether in such circumstances the
reserving State can be regarded as being a part); to the Convention
at all. This means, before the Convention comes into force : is the
Secretary-General, as depositary, obliged to incliide the ratification

or accession subject to ratification among the twenty ratifications
or accessions which, under Article XII1 of the Convention, are
required to bring it into force :and aftcr thc Convention has come
into force can such ratifications or accessions be included in the
sixteen which are necessary to inaintnin the Convention in force
iinder Article XV ? It is siiggcstcd that these questions have to
hc ansjvered in the following manner. It has been said that the
practice described by the Secretary-General in A11372 is in prin- IVRITTES STATEXEST OF ISRAEL 213

ciple correct, and that one coiisequence of this is that the effect of
a State objecting to a proposed reservation is to defer the entry
into force of the Convention until either the reservation is with-
drawn, or consent given, or until the requisite number of States
accept the proposed rcscrvation. Applying this to the specific
circumstances of the Gcnocide Convcntion it can bc sait1that, had
the reservation been accepted by nineteen States, with tlie rcserv-
ing State as the twenticth, the Convention would have entered
into force. Similarly, if the number of contracting parties, by denuii-

ciation or otherwise, should be reduced to sixteen, of which some
are parties snbject to reservations and al1 the rcmainder have
consented to the said reservations, then the Convention iirould
remain in force. But this will not be the case where any of the
contracting parties is objccting to the said reservations. In that
event the reserving State cannot be included in the enumeration
.oftwenty or sixteen as the case may be.

21. Theremarks made in the previous paragraph rcfcr, of course,
to objections to reservations when these objcctions are made by
the States which, at tlie tinie when the reservations are proposed,
are the potential contracting parties if the Convention has not
come into force, or the actual contracting parties, if it is in force.
Once a State has become a party to the Convention subject to a
reservation, by virtue of its reservation having been accepted by
the existing potential or actual contracting parties, it rcmains a
part51for al1time :itsstatus as a party cannot be affected by objcc-
tion to the reservations on the part of a future contractiiig party.

.Once the Convention has entered into force, future contracting
parties have to accept it as it is. They are not obliged to accept
existing reser\rations :on the other hand they cannot, by combining
with their ratification or accession an objection to already existing
reservations, thereby hring about the caducity of the Convention
in so far as conccrns States parties to it subject to reservations.
To hold otherwise would eiiable subsequent contracting parties
to destroy the existiiig list of contracting partics simply by
objecting to existing rcservations, a state of affairs hardly con-
diicive to the orderly conduct of international administration,
.and one not, it is submitted, in accordance with the practice
that has pertained hithcrto.

22. It is conceded that this solution results in a different effect
being accordcd to an objection to a reservation dependent upon
whether it is made hy an existing potential or actual contracting
party at the time the reservation is proposed, or whethcr it is made
by a State desirous of bccoming an actual contracting party after

the reserving State is itself already a contracting party. Short of
holding that tlie effect of objcction to a reservation by a State in
the first category is only to prevent the application of the Conven-
tion as betwen the rcscrving State and the State objectiiig to the214 WRITTET STATE31EST OF ISRAEI.

said resen-ation, it is impossible to avoid this result. In this con-
nexion the following remark can be made :The question of choosing
between what is sometimes called the Latin-American system and^
the League of Nations system is to be solved not by reference to
the merits of the two systems considered in the abstract.The answer
can only be sought by derivation from the economy of the Conven-
tion, for it is the Convention that is being interpreted, and the
debate is not one on the merits of the two different legal solutions.
for the particiilar problem of reservations. Looking at the matter
from the standpoint of the Convention it seems inevitable that the
problem can only be solved partly on the lines of the one and partly
on the lines of the other system, for it appears clearly that the
intention underlying Articles XII1 and XI' is tliat the respective

enumerations of twenty and sixteen refer to States unconditionally
parties to the Convention or, if some States have entered reserv-
ations, then to acceptance of the said reservations by al1the parties.
at the relevant date. In considering reservations the following
reflexion is put forward: It cannot be imputed to the reserving
State that it in fact desired or intended to prevent the Convention
from coming into force generally except on its own terms. The
reserving State is entitled to have its reservation taken in good
fajth, unless mala fidescan be clearly established. Similarly an
objection to a reservation by any State entitled to do so has to be
taken in good faith. It should not give rise to the imputation that
the intention of theState in objecting to a reservation is toprevent
generally the application of the Convention to the reserving State,
which, indeed, by proposing its reservation does no more than
indicate its \rillingness to be bound by the terms of the Convention

upon certain conditions which other States can acceyt or reject as
they will. To hold otherwise would mean creating a new type of
"veto" (for waiit of a better term). The view here put forward
would preclude a veto of this type, for it has the consecluence that
where the Convention is ratified or acceded to by a State subject
to a reservatioii, once the Convention is in force generally, the
reserving Statc is to be regarded as a party to it except in so.
far as concrrns the nctual contracting parties as object to the said
reservation.

23. Finally, it is necessary to say a fen words about the manner
in which the objection should be stated. Dociiment A11372contains,
on pp. 24 ff.,the tests of some of the correspondence exchanged
between the Secretary-General and certain othcr States on the

subject of certain of the reservations proposed to the Genocide
Convention. Two States indicated their view of the consequences
of their clisagreement with these reservations as being the non-
application of the reservations to themselves. The third State
stated that it could not regard as valid any ratification of the
Convention maiiitaining such reservations. This correspondence WRITiEX STATEMENT OF ISRAEI. 215

clearly reflects the influence of the two systems operative in regard
to reservations generally. It is suggested that communications of
this nature go beyond the statement of objection to the reservations,
which is their main purpose, for they indicate the views of the
governments concerned as to the legal effects of their objections.
However, it is submitted that this is not a matter which can be
determined subjectively, for it depends upon various legal rules,
the nature and extent of which cannot be defined unilaterally.

24. Having regard to the foregoing considerations, it is possible
to suggest the following aiiswers to the questions which have been
put to the Court, xlwxys on the assumption and to the extent that
reservations are admissible as of right to the Genocide Convention :
In so far as concerns the Convention on the Prevention and

Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in the event of a State
ratifying or acceding to the Convention subject to a reservation
made either,oii ratification or on accessioii, or on signature followed
by ratification :
1. \Yhere the reserving State is heiiig enumerated for the purposes
of Article XII1 or Article X\' of the Convention, it cannot he
regarded as being a party to the Convention \\!hile still main-
taining its reser\~atioii if the rescrvation is ohjected to by one or

more of the parties to the Convention but not by others. The
expression "parties to the Convention" means the potential or
actual contracting parties on the relevant date. For al1 other
purposes, however, the reserving State can in these circumstances
be regarded as being a party to the Convention in so faras concerns
its relations with such other of the parties to the Convention as do
not object to the said reservation.
II. To the extent that the answer to question 1 may be affirm-

ative, the effect of the reservation as bet\veen the reserving State
and :
(a) the parties \\,hich object to thereservation, isthat theconven-
tion does not enter into force ;
(b) those \\,hich accept it, is that the Convention enters into force
subject to the terms of the accepted rcservation.

III. The only States entitled to object to a reservation are
those yhich have signed and ratified the Convention or which
have acceded to it. Therefore an objection to a reservation made
(a) by a signatory which has not yet ratifiecl; or

(b) by a State entitled to sign or acceded which has not yet done
so, would have no legal effect as regards the ansiver to question 1.
Hakirya, Israel.
14 January, 1951. 8. WKITTEN STATEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL
LABOUR ORGANIZATION

I~E~~ORASBU BY~ THE IXTEKNATIONL AALBOUR OFFICE

I. On 16 November, 1950, the General Assembly of the United
Nations adopted a Resolution requesting the Iiiternational Court
of Justice to give an advisory opinion on the following questions:

"In so far as concems the Convention on the Preventioii and
Punishment of the Cnme of Genocidein the event of a Statetif.ying
or acceding to the Convention subject,to a reservation made either
on ratification or on accession, or on signature followed by ratifica-
tion :
1. Can the reserving State be regarded as being a Party to
the Convention while still mairitaining its reservation if
the reservation is objected to by one or more of the parties
to the Conventioii but not by others?
II. If the answer to question 1 is iri the affirmative, what is
the effect of the reservation as between the reserving State
and :
(a) The parties which object to the reservatio?
(b) Those which accept it ?

III. What would be the legal effect as regards the answer to
question 1 ifan objection to a reservation is ma:e
(a) By a signatory which has not yet ratifie?
(b)By a State entitled to sign or accede but which has
not yet done so?"

2. On I December, 1950, the President of the Court made an
Order reciting that the International Labour Organization and the
Organization of American States are likely to be able to furnish
information on the practice of reservations to multilateral conven-
tions and it is, therefore, advisableto receive such information in
so far as this practice might enlighten the Court on the questioiis
submitted to it;which are confined to the Convention on the Preven-
tion and Punishment of the Cnme of Genocide, and appointed

Saturday, zo January, 1951, as the time-limit within which States
and international organizations notified by the Registrar of the
request made by the General Assembly may file written statements
with the Court.

3. On I December, 1950, the Registrar of the Court communi-
cated the Order of the President of the Court to the Director-
General of the International Labour Office by a letter constituting \VRITTES STATEXEST OF THE I.L. o. 217

the special cominunication provided for in paragraph z of Article 66
of the Statute of the Court.
4. Article IX, paragraph I, of the Agreement hetween the United
Nations and the International Labour Organization, which came
into force on 14Uecember, 1946, in virtue of approval by the General
Conference of the International Labour Organization on z October,

1946, and by the General Assembly of the United Nations ori
14December, 1946, provides that "the International Labour Organ-
ization agrees to furnish any inforniation which may be requested
by the International Court of Justice in pursuance of Article 34 of
the Statute of the Court". In discharge of this obligation the
Director-General of the International Labour Officehas prepared the
present memorandiim in response to the request made by the Court.

j. International labour conventions are adopted and enter iiito
force by a procedure \vhich differs i~i important respects from
the procedure applicable to other iriterriational instruments. The
special features of this procedure have always been regarded as
making international labour conveiitions intriiisically incapable
of being ratified subject to any reservation. The question of the
admissibility or inadmissibility of reservations to international
labour conventions is not at present before the Court, but the
established practice does not appear to have beeii challenged from
any quarter. In thesc circiimstances the question \vhetherareserïing
State can, while still maintaining its reservatioii, be regarded as
being a party to a convention in relatioii to those parties \vhich
accept the reservation does not arise in respect of international

labour conventions. It is.however, for the Court to considerhow
farthe practice and experience of the Iiiternational Labour Organiz-
ation may have any bearing upon the probleins which arise iii
respect of other international convcntioris in the case of xvhich
reservations are considered to be admissible in certain circumstanccs
and in respect of which the questions formulated by the General
Assembly in its request for the opinion of the Court may accordingly
anse. The practice of the Interuatioiial Labour Orgaiiization has,
therefore, been sirmrnarized as succinctly as possible in the follo\ving
paragraphs for the information of the Court.

6. Intcrnatioiial labour conventions are not negotiated by repre-
sentatives of the potential contracting parties and signed on their
behalf. They are adopted by the General Coiiference of the Inter-
national Labour Organization, commoiily known as the Inter-
national Lahoiir Conference, which is one of the principal orgaiis
of the International Labour Organizatiori.

7. The membership of the Interiiatiorial Laboiir Organization,
a certified copy of the Constitution of \\,hich, as now in force, is
attached hereto as Appendix 1, consists of States.The International
Labour Conference is composed of four representatives of each of IVRITTEh' STATEMENT OF THE 1.L. O.
z19
the case of such countries" (Article rg (3)). It also provides that

two copies of theconvention or recommendation shall be authen-
ticated by the signatures of the President of the Conference and
of the Director-General ; that, of these copies, one shall be deposited

in the archives of the International Labour Office and the other
with the Secretary-General of the United Nations; and that the
Director-General will communicate a certified copy of the con-
vention or recommendation to each of the Members (Article 19 (4)).

Prior to the amendment of the Constitution in 1946, conventions
\r7eredescribed at this stage of the procedure (i.e. at the time of
and following their adoption until their entry into force) as "draft
conventions" and this term will, therefore, be found in many of

the older documents. The terminology was changed when the
Constitution was amended in 1946on the ground that the expression
"draft convention" was misleading since its normal use in inter-
national practice was to describe instruments not yet signed and

the "draft conventions", as they were then called, adoptedbythe
International Labour Conference, were the cquivalent of instm-
ments already signed by pleilipotentiaries but not yet ratified

since only ratification by States remained necessary to bring them
into force as binding instruments '.
--
The reasons for the change of terminology are stated more fully in th~ following
tçrms in paragraph 52 of the Report of the Conference Dçlegation on Constitutional
Questions on the basis of which it was dccided to make the change :
"52. The Dclcgation also recommcnds a second fomal change in Article 19
iviiich, thougli it does not involve any issue of principle, is not for that reason with-
out substantial practical importance. The use of the word 'draft' in the term 'draft
convention' has frequently led to misunderstanding and has tended to obscure the
binding character of thc obligation resulting from the ratification of conventions.
The matter *-as disciiççe<l by the Committeç on the Application of Conventions of
thc 25th sessian of the Conference (Gçneva, 1939).which summarized the position
as follows :

'It would appear that in some countries the vicw is taken that draft conven-
tions, as distinct from conventions, do no more than lai down a principle
which ought at some point to take aconcretç formin national leg/slation. The
Committee desires to stress the fact that the technical term "draft conven-
tion" means a convention adopted by the Conference but not yrt ratificd by
the requisite number of States. ltseems necrsçary to point out that once the
requisite number of ratificationsis obtained,a labour convention ceases to bc a
"draft" and becomes a binding international instrument giving risc to precise
legal obligations. Shi: Committce accordingly wishes to rcpçat the observ-
ationmade on more than onc occasion that the ratification of an international
labour convention isas solemn and binding as the ratificatioii of any other
international treaty, and that ratification thereoi imposes a definite ohliga-
tion upon the ratifying Alember Statç to give cffect to the tcrms of tlconven-
tion completely and punctually *.'
The Delegation considers it desirable to remove thc source of the equivocatiotl
by eliminating the word 'draft' fromthe Constitution. The te- 'draft convention'
is normally used in international practice to describc instruments which have not
been signed ;instruments which have been signed but not yet ratified are not so

*International Labour Confercnce, 25th session, Geneva. ig39 : Record of
Proceedings, p. 415.
15220 IVRITTES STATEAIEST'OF THE 1. L. O

9. The entry into force of conventioiis is governed partly hy
the provisions of the Constitution and partly by the final articles
of the individual conventions.

IO. Article 19 of the Constitution states as follows the procedure

to he followed in respect of conventions adopted by the Conference
and the obligations of illembers with regard thereto :

"5. In the case of a convention:
(a) the convention will be communicated to al1 Members for
ratification ;

(b) each of thc Members undertakes that it will, within 'the
period of one year at most from the closing of the session of the
Conference, or if it is impossible owing to exceptional circum-
stances to do so within the period of one year, then at the
earliest ~racticabie moment. and in no case later than eiahteen
months.from the closing of the session of the ~onferencerbrin~

the convention before the authonty or authorities within whose
com~etence the matter lies. for the enactment of leaislation or
. .....-.... ~. ,
(c) Members shall inform the Director-General of the Inter?-
tional Labour Officeof the measures taken in accordance wth
this article to brine the convention before the said cornDetent
- -

designated but are describcd as 'conventions' or by some similar title. Now, uiidcr
the Constitution of thc International Labour Organization, thr formnlity of signn-
ture by plenipotrntiaries is replaccd by adoption by the Confcrençc as the açt wliiçh
gives life to the instrumenthy opcning itto ratification by States. A rlraft conven-
tion adopted by the International Labour Conference but not yet ratified is. there-
fore, the eqiiivalcntof a diplornatic convention whicb has been signed but not yct
ratifiedand not the equivalent of a draft diplomatic convention which has not yet
been signed. Only ratification by States remains necessary in order to bring it
into force as a binding instrument. The use of the terrn 'draft' to describe conven-
tions adopted by the International Labour Conference iç, therefore, a misnomer
which is almost bound to be misleuding. It is significant that al167 of the esisting
conventions refer to thernçelves. except in their titles andpreamblesas'conventions'
and not as 'draft conventions' iii respect of periods both before and alter thçir
coming into force. There isno impropriety in thiç for. as bas been paintecl out above,
the use of tems such as 'convention' to describe instruments not yet in force is
\vi.ellestablishein diplomatic practice. It is also significant that the Constitution
of the Fwd and Agriculture Organiratian empomers the F.A.O. to submit convçn-
tianî to its &lembers with a virw to their acceptance by the appropriate constitu-
tional procedure, that the U.S.E.S.C.O. Constitution gives the U.X.Ii.S.C.0. Confer-
ence a similar powçr tu adopt 'conventions', and that thc Charter of tliç Uiiitcd
Xations uses the te- 'drnft convention' to describr drafts to bc submittçd by the
Economic and Social Coiincil t<ithc Assïmbly and not to desïrit>ç instruments which
have received the approval of the Assembly and are already open to ratification.
The Uelegation thcrefore recommcnds that, with a view to removing a source uf
misunderstanding and bringing I.L.O. terminology into conforiiiitywitli accçptçd
diplomatic usage ancl the terminology ujed in rccent United Nations instruments.
the xmrd 'dr~ft' should be climinated from the expression 'draft convention' in
Articles rgand 30 of the Constitution of the Organization."
Source ; First Report of the Conference Delegation on Constitutional Questions,
International Labour Conferencr. 29th session, JIontreal 1946. Report II (1)
Constitutional Questions. l'art 1. Rçports of the Conferencr Delegation on Constitu-
tional Questions. pp. 43-45. WRITTEN STATEMEXT OF THE 1.L. O. 221

anthority or authorities, with particulars of the authority or
authorities regarded as competent, and of the action taken by
them ;
(d) if the hfember obtains the consent of the authority or
authorities within whose competeiice the matter lies, it will
communicate the formal ratification of the convention to the
Director-General and will take such action as may be necessary
to make effective the provisions ofsucli convention ;
(e)if the Member does not obtain the consent of the authority
or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, no
further obligation shall rest upon the Member except that it
shall report to the Director-General of the International Labour
Office, at appropriate intervals as requested by tlie Governing
Body, the position of its law and practice in regard to the
matters dealt with in the convention, showing the extent to
of the provisions of the convention by legislation, administra-
tive action, collective agreement or otherwise and stating the
difficulties which prevent or delay the ratification of such
convention."

II. It is clear from the report submitted to the 1919 Peace
Conference by its Commission on International Labour Legislation
that the purpose of these provisions was to ensure that national
legislatures have an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the
measures favoured by a two-thirds majority of the International
Labour Conference. It has been the general practice of Rfembers
of the International Labour Organization to submit convcntions

adoptecl by the Conference to legislativc bodies in fulfilment
of their obligations under this provision of the Constitution, a
detailcd legal analysis of which by the Intcriiational Labour
Office was siibmitted to the International Labour Conference at
its 26th session (International Labour Conference, 26th session,
Philadelphia, 1944. Report 1, Fz~tzare I->olicy, rogramme and Status
of the International Labour Organizatio~z,pp. 169.183, "The Nature
of the Competent Authority comtemplated by Article 19 of the
Constitution of the International Labour Organization"). The
Conference Delegation on Constitutional Questions, considering
the rnatter further on behalf of the Conference during the interval
between its 1945 and 1946 sessions when the 1946 amendments to
the Constitution were being framed, reported as follows : "The

Delegation does not consider it necessary to clarify the obligation
imposed by Article 19 (5) of the Constitution in order to leave no
doubt that the 'authority or authorities' to which conventions and
recommendations must be submitted shall be the national parlia-
ment or other competent legislative authority in each country.
It does not consider that any doubt in regard to the matter exists
and it would see serious disadvantages in modifying the language
of so fundamental a provision of the Constitution of the Organiz-
ation which bas given rise to the development of a large body of222 WRITTES STATEIIENT OF THE 1. L. O.

national constitutional practice and which, as Memhers of the
Economic and Social Council of the Unitcd Xations have pointed
out in the course of the deliberations of the Council, represents a
great adrance on the practice of otlierinternational organizations"
(First Report of the Conference Delegation on Constitutional
Questions, paragraph 49, International Labour Conference,
29th session, Montreal, 1946, Report II (r) Constitutional Questions,
Part 1, Reports of the Conference Ilelegation on Constitiitional

Questions, pp. 42-43),
12. Certain special provisions are applicable to federal States.
Shese are stated as follows in paragraph 7 of Article 19 of the

Constitution of the Organization :
"7. In the case of a federal State. the followiiig provisions shall
apply :
(a) in respect of conventions and recommendations which the
federal government regards as appropriate under its constitu-
tional system for federal action, the obligations of the federal
State shaü be the same as those of Members which are not
federal States ;

(b) in respect of conventions and recommendations\vhich the federal
government regards as appropriate under its constitutional
provinces, or cantons rather ttian for federal action, th- federal
government shall :

(i) make, in accordaiice witli its constitution and the constitu-
tions of the States, provinces or cantons concerned, effective
arrangements for tlie reference of such conventions and
recommendations not later than eightecn months fromthe
closing of the session of the Conference to the appropriate
federal, State, provincial or caiitonal authorities for the
enactment of legislation or other action ;
(ii) arrange, subject to the concurrence of the State, provincial
or cantonal governments concerned, for penodical consult-
ations between the federal and the State, proviiicial or
cantonal authorities with a aiew to promoting within the
federal State CO-ordinateclaction to give effect to the
provisions of such conventions aiid recommendations;
(iii) inform the Director-General of the International Labour
Officeof the mesures taken in accordance with this article
to bring such conventions and recommendations before the
appropriate federal. State, provincial or cantonalauthonties
with particulars of tlie authorities regarded as appropnate
and of the action taken by thern ;
(iv) in respect of each such coiiventioii which it has not ratified,
report to the Director-General of the International Labour
Office,at appropriate intervals as requested by the Govern-
ing Body, the position of the law and practice of the
federation and its constituent States, provinces or cantons
in regard to the conventioii, showing the extent to which WRITTES STATEZIEXT OF THE 1. 1.. 0. 223

efiect has been given, or is proposed to be given, to any of
the provisions of the convention by legislation, adminis-
trative action, collective agreement, orothenvise ;
() [Relateso~tlyto recommendations]"

13. \tlhilc the procedure for the submission of conventions
to national competent authorities and for the communication
of ratifications to the Director-Gcneral is governed by the provi-
sions of the Constitution, the conditions for the entry into force
of each convention are prescribcd by the final articles of the conven-
tion itself. A collection of the' texts of the conventions and recom-
mendations adopted by the International Labour Conference as
amended by the Final Articles Revision Convention, 1946, published
by the International Labour Office under the title Conventions and
Kecos~nzenrlations 1919-1949, is attached hereto as Appendix II.

The normal form of the relevant final articles currently in use is
as follows :
'.'Article(a). The formal ratifications of this Convention shall be
communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour
Office for registration.
Article (b). (1) This Convention shall be bindiiig only upon
those Members of the International Labour Organization whose
ratifications have been registered with the Director-General.

(2) It shall come into force x months after the date on
which the ratifications of v Members have been registered with
the Director-General.
(3) Thereafter, this Convention shall come into force for
any Member x months after the date on which its ratification has
been registered.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ,....,.....

Article (f). (1)The Director-General of the International
Labour Officeshall notify al1Members of the International Labour
Organization of the registration of al1 ratifications, declarations
and denunciations communicated to him by the Members of the
Organization.
(2)When notifying the Members of the Organization of the
registration of the Y ratifications communicated to him the
Director-General shall draw the attention of the Organization .
to the date upon which the Convention will come into force.
Article (g). The Director-General of the International Labour
Officeshall communicate to the Secretary-General of the United
Nations for registration in accordance with Article 102 of the
Charter of the United Nations full particulars of al1 ratifications,
declarations and acts ofdenunciation registered byliimin accordance
witli the provisions of the preceding articles."

In the absence of special circumstances the final articles provide
that the convention will come into force 12 months after the date
on which the ratifications of two Members have been registered,224 WRITTES STATENEST OF THE 1. L.O.

but bath the period of 12 months and the number of ratifications
are sometimes varied and ratification by either al1or a prescribed
number of certain named States, or of States fulfilling certain
conditions such as the possessionof a prescribed tonnage of shipping,
is sometimes required.

14. It will be observed that the Constitution of the Organization
itself provides, in paragraph 3 of Article 19, a method of varying,
by the inclusion of appropriate special provisions in a convention
at the time of its adoption, the obligations of any State which is
unable forany of various reasons ta give full effect ta the provisions
of the convention of general application. A number of conventions
contain articles embodying specificmodifications of their provisions
in respect of named States (Hours of Work (Industry) Convention,
1919, Articles 9, IO, II, 12 and 13 ;Night Work (\Vamen) Conven-
tion, 1919, Article 5 ; Jlinimum Age (Industry) Convention, 1919.
Articles j and 6 ; Night Work of Young Persons (Industry) Conven-
tion 1919, Articles j and 6 ;Minimum Age (Trimmers and Stokers)
Convention, 1921, Article 3 (c) ;Rlinimum Age (Non-Industrial
Employment) Convention, 1932, Article 9 ;Night Work (Women)

Convention (Rcvised), 1934, Article j : Minimum Age (Industry)
Convention (Revised), 1937, Articles 6, 7 and 8; Minimum Age
(Non-IndustrialEmployment) Convention (Revised), 1937, Article 9 ;
Social Security (Seafarers) Convention. 1946, Article I (2) (a) (a);
Seafarers' Pensions Convention, 1946, Article 2 (2)(a) (v) ;Aledical
Examination of Young Persons (Industry) Convention, 1946,
Article IO ;Night \Vork of Young Persons (Non-Iiidustrial Occupa-
tions) Convention, 1946, Article 8; Night Work (Women) Conven-
tion (Revised), 1948, Articles IO and II ; Night Work of Young
Persons (Industry) Convention (Revised), 1948, Articles 8 and 9).
Some of these Conventions permit the amendment of these articles
by a special procedure involving the adoption of an amendment
hy the International Labour Conference and ratification thereof

by the Memher or Members concerned (Minimuin Age (Industry)
Convention (licvised), 1937, Article 9; Minimum Age (Non-Indus-
trial Employmeiit) Convention (Revised). 1937, Article 9; Medical
Examination of Young Persons (Industry) Convention, 1946,
Article 10 ; Night Work of Young Persons (Non-Industrial Occupa-
tions) Convention, 1946, Article 8 ; Night Work (Women)
Convention (Revised). 1948, Article 12; Night Work of Young
Persons (Industry) Convention (Revised), 1948, Article IO).

Ij. It will also be observed that the procedure provided for
in the Constitution in cases in which a convention is applied only
in part, is for a Memher to report to the Director-General of the
International Labour Office, at appropriate intervals as requested
by the Governing Body, "the position of its law and practice iii
regard to the matters dealt with in the convention, showing the
extent to which effect has been given, or is proposed to be given, WRITTES STATEIIEXT OF THE 1. L. O. 225

to any of the provisions of the convention by legislation, adminis-
trative action, collective agreement or otherwise and stating the
difficulties which prevent or delay the ratification of such conven-
tion" (Article 19 (5)(e)). This provision may be contrasted with the
comparable provision concerning recommendations which refers
to "such modifications of" the provisions of the recomrnendation

"as it has been found or may be found necessary to make in adopt-
ing or applying them".

16. Ratification of an international labour convention involaes
an obligation for the Memher under the Constitution (Article
19 (5) (d)) to "take such action as may be necessary to make effect-
ive the pro\risions of such convention". The individual conventions
frequently include provisions specifying in greater detail the action
to be taken by Nembers to ensure their effective application,
iiicluding provisions conceming inspection, the keeping of records,
penalties and similar matters. Rlany of the conventions leave a

wide range of questions to national discretion but provide that the
discretion left to each Member shall be exercised after consultation
with the organizations of employers and workers concerned
(cg. Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919, Article 6 (2);
Safety Provisions (Building) Convention, 1937, Article 2 (2);
Ernployment .Service Conventio~i, 1948, Article 5 ; Night Work
of Young Persons (Industry) Convention (Revised), 1948, Articles
z (3) and 3 (2) ; Accommodation of Crews Conve~ition (Revised),
1949, Article 1 (5); Labour Clauses (PublicContracts) Convention,
Articles '(4) and (5) ; Protection of Wages Convention, 1949,
Article 2). Sometimes the discretion left to Memhers takes the form

of a provision permitting certain requirements of the convention
to be waived or varied by agreement between the organizations
concerned (e.g. Hours of Work (Industry) Conventioii, 1919,
Articles z (b) and 5). Each of the Memhers agrees by the Constitu-
tion (Article 22) to make an annual report to the International
Labour Office on the measures which it has taken to give effect
to the provisions of the conventions to which it is a party. These
reports are to be made in such a form and are to contain such parti-
culars as the Governing Body may request (Article 22). The forrn
of report approved by the Governing Body currently in use always
includes a question requesting information concerning obser-
vations received from the organizations of employers and workers

concerned regarding the practical application of the convention.
The Constitution provides that each Afember shall communicate
to the representative organizations of employers and workpeople
recognized for the purpose of the nomination of dclcgates to the
Conference copies of these reports (Article 23 (2)). a sumrnary of
nhich the Director-General is to lay before the ncxt meeting of the
Conference (.4rticle 23 (1)). In the event of any representation being
made to the International Labour Office by an industrial associa-226 \\'RITTES STATEYEST OF THE I. L. O.
tion of employers or of workers that any of the Members has failecl

to secure in any respect the effective observance \rithin its jurisdic-
tion of any convention to which it is a party, the Goveriiing Body
may commonicate this representatioii to the government against
which it isinatlc and may invite tliat government to make such statc-
ment on the subject as it may thiiik fit. (Article 24 of tlie Coiistitli-
tion.) If no stateinent is recei\,ed within a reasonable time from the
government iiiquestion, or if the statemeiit when received is iiot
deeined to be satisfactory bp the Governing Body, the latter shall
have the right to publish the representation and the statement, if
any, made iii reply to it (Article zj of tlie Constitutioii). The

Coiistitutioii alsoprovides for a procedure of complaint, which inay
iiivolvc the appointment of a commissioii of enquiry (Article 26) ;
this procediire may be adopted by the Governing Body, ivliich
includes eniployer and ~vorkermembers who have the saine rights
as go\rernnierit members (Article 7 of the Constitution), eithcr of
its owii motion or on receipt of a cornplairit from a delegatc to the
Conference (Article 26 (4) of the Constitution). In certain cases these
provisions of the Constitution of the Organization of general

confain cljiises providing that effect may be given to al1or certaiii
of their provisions by laws or regulations, collective agreements
hetween shipo\vncrs or seafarers, or a combination of the above,
and that where effect has been giveii to a provision of the convention
by means of a collective agreement the Member shall not be required
to take in respect of such provision the enforcemeiit action provided
for in the convention ; any observations or suggestions concerniiig
the degrce in which such agreements give effect to the provisions

of the convention, which may be macle by a committee reprcscnt-
ative of g~\~crnmentsand of shipowners' and seafarers' organizations
to he set 1111for examining the measurcs taken to give effect to the
conveiitioii. are to be brought to the notice of the organizations of
employers aiid workers who are parties to the collective agreements
(Social Secority (Seafarers) Convention, 1946, Article IO ; Paid
Vacations (Seafarers) Convention, 1946, Article IO; \irages, Hours
of \f70rk and 3lanning (Sea) Convention, 1946, Article 21 ;'Paid
Vacations (Seafarers) Convention (lievised), 1949, .4rticle IO ;
tirages, Hoiirs of \i'ork and Nanning (Sea) Convention (Revised),

1949, Article 21). The provisions of the Constitution are supple-
meiited in the case of the Freedom of Association Convention, 1948,
by tlie existeiice of a Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission
on Freedom of Association establishcd by the Governing Body in
agrccmcnt lvith the Economic and Social Council of the United
Nations to consider allegations made by governments or by trade
unions or employers' organizations referred to it by the Governing
Body or the Ecoiiomic and Social Council with the concurrence of
the goverinnent concerned. It il he observed that while the WRIlTES STr\TEJIEST OF THE 1. L. O. 227

ratification of iiiternational labour con\~entioiis is a matter for
Nember States, acting through their national competent authorities
in accordancc \rith the provisions of the Constitiitioii of the Orgaii-
ization \\,hich lay down a procedure different from that applicable
to diplomatic instruments, organizations of eml~loyers and workers

are allotted a definite and important part in both ~iatioiial and
international procedures for .the application of the con\rcntions as
well as in the original adoption of conventions by the Internatioiial
Labour Conference.
17. The ~~iirposeswhich it is sought to achieve by the adoptioii
of international labour conventions are various aiid the rclatioc

importance of diffcreiit ~biirposesvaries appreciahly from oric case
to another. Iii the First Report of the Con/erefzceDelegutioil un
Constitrltio~rnlQz~estionswhich reviewecl the Coiistitution on hch;ilf
of the Confcrerice doring the interval betwccn its 1945 aiid 1946
sessions thesc piirposes are summarized as follows :

number of functions the relative importance of which varies frome a
one case to another. In addition to giving a certain stability to the
main outlines of social legislation, thereby strengthening the forces
of social progress, and giving a social content to the laxvof nations
which promises a great accession of needed strength to the growiiig
worlcl community, they also fulfil a variety of more immediately
tangible and measurable purposes. IVhen ratified and applied, the?
constitute codes of fair international competition ; thcy afford
protection for workers employed in countnes other tlian tlieir omii ;
they furnish the necessary legal basis for tlie international CO-ordiiizi-
tion ofplacing arrangements and socialservices ;they resolveconflicts
of lnws arid conflicts of jurisdiction in regard to the applicatioii of
social legislatioi; they create rights of an international cliaractcr,
such as tlie pension rights of migrant workers, which could riot be
effectively establislied by action by any one country ; tliey makc
possible reforms, like the marking of the weight on Iicavy p;ick;iycs
transported by vessels, which it is impossible to make eflcctivc
witliout concerted action by a number of couiitries." (Intcrriational
Labour Coiiference, 29th session, Ilfontreal, 1946, Report II (1).
Constitiitional Qiiestions. Part 1, Reports of the Conference Ilelega-
tion on Constitutional Questions, pp. 36-37.)

Most of thcse ~~urposesare of such character that the acccpt;iiice
of reservatioiis to ratifications of conventions would gravcly
1)rejudicc the possibility of attaining them.

18.The foregoing survey of the Constitution and corlstitiitional
practice of tlie International Labour Organizatioii iritlic:itcs the
contest iii which the question of the admissihilit)' of rezer~ltions
to international labour conventions has arisen. It has been the
consistent vie\\, of the International Labour Orgaiiization, siiicc
its establishment, that rcservations are not admissible. This vicn.
is Ibased upon arid siipported by the consistcrit practice of tlic228 WRITTES STATE3IEST OF THE 1.L.O.

International Labour Organization and by the practice of the
League of Nations during the period from 1920-1946 when the
League was responsible for the registration of ratifications of inter-
iiational labour conventions. 1,188 ratifications of international
labour conventions, distributed over 95 conventions and 60 parties,
have been registered over a period of thirty years, and none of
these ratifications is subject to a substantive reservation quali-
fying the terms of the convention. In each case in which a ratifi-
cation subject to a reservation has beenpresented for registration,
the inadmissibility of reservations to international labour conven-
tions has been drawn ta the attention of thegovernment concerned;
in each case the government concerned has concurred in the vie\$,
put fonvard by the International Labour Office ;in certain cases
the proposed reservations have subsequently been withdrawn and
the convention ratified without reservations : in the other cases the
conventions have reinained unratified ;in no case has a ratification
been registreed subject to a substantive reservation.

19. The principle that reservations ta ratifications of interna-
tional labour conventions are not admissible \vas first formulated
by the International Labour Office in 1920, has been repeatedly
reaffirmed since that time, and bas been generally accepted by the
Members of the International Labour Organiz t'a ion.
(a) In 1920 the Polish Government asked the International .
Labour Office whethcr it would be possible for it to ratify three

international labour conventions (the Unemployment Convention,
1919 ;the Naternity Protection Convention, 1919, and the Night
Iliork (Women) Convention, 1919) subject to reservations. The
Officereplied that this was not possible and this view was accepted
by the Polish Government \\,hich subsequently ratified one of the
conventions without a reservation and abstained from ratifying
the other two. The correspondence \vas drawn to the attention of
the Members of the Organization in the Oficia Blulleti ofnthe
IiiternationalLabour Office(Volume II,No. 5,p. 18).

(b) In 1921 the Government of India informed the Secretary-
General of the League of Nations when ratifying certain conven-
tions that if ratification subject to reservationswas permissible it
\vas also prepared ta ratify the Minimum Age (Industry) Conven-
tion, 1919. The Secretary-General commiinicated the letter of the
Government of India to the International Labour Office and the
International Labour Office advised the Gorernment of India,
nrhich accepted its view, that ratification subject to reservations
ivas not permissible. This correspondence \vas clraivn to the atten-
tion of the Members of the Organization in the Oficia Bulletilt
of the International Labour Office (Volume IV, pp. 290-297) and
was submitted to the International Labour Conference in the
Director's Report (Iiiternational Labour Conference, Third Session, WRITTES STATEAIEST OF THE 1.L. O. 229

Geneva, 1921, Officia1 Record, Volume II, pp. 1043-1050). The
Government of India's acceptance of this view was confirmed in
1937 when explaining its inability to ratify the Minimum Age
(Sea) Convention (Revised), 1936 (International Labour Office,
Oficia Bt~llet Vof.X,XII, No. 4, p. 199).
(c) In 1928 the Cuban Government communicated tothe Secre-
tary-General of the League of Nations instruments of ratification
of eight conventions. The instruments for three convention: the
Hours of \\'ork (Industry) Convention, 1919; the Weekly Rest
(Industry) Convention, 1921, and the Inspection of Emigrants
Convention, 1926,contained reservations. In these circnmstances

the Secretary-General of the League of Nations consulted the
Director of the International LabourOffice before registering the
ratifications. The International LabourOffice took the view that
the reservatioiis were inadmissible and this view \vas accepted by
the Secretary-General and hy the Cuban Government which sub-
sequently ratified the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919,
without reservation, in 1934. The instmments of ratification for the
other conventions were not registered.
(d) In &)36the Peruvian Government suhmitted tothe Peruvian
Congressia decree proposing the ratification of certain international
labour conventions suhject to reservations. The International
Labour Office drew the attention of the Peruvian Government to

the inadmissibility of reservations. The Peruvian Minister of Foreign
Affairs acknowledged the validity of the thesis put forward by the
International Labour Office, transmitted the communication
received from the Officeto Congress, and suggested the withdrawal
of the proposed reservations.
The vicw expressed in these cases by the International Labour
Officehas met with the general acquiescence of the Members of the
Organization. In most cases such acquiescence has been tacit, but.
in Great Britain it was stated in debate in the House of Commons

hy the Minister of Labour on 9 May, 1923, and confirmed by his
predecessor, that two successive Ministers of Labourhad advised the
Government against ratification subject to reservations (Parlia-
mentary Debates, Ofici a lport, House of Commons, Fifth Series,
Vol. 163, columns 2418-2439). The fundamental issue of policy
involvcd was statcd by Dr. Macnamara in the following terms
"You can ratify and reserve and reserve until there is nothing
Icft" (ibid column 2439). The officia1correspondence relating to
these various cases excharigcd bctween the governments concerned,
the Secretary-General of the League of Nations and theDirector
of the International Labour Officeis reproduced in Appendix III.
The main arguments put fortvard in this correspondence by the
International Labour Office, and accepted by the governments
concerned, are succinctly stated in the following extract from the230 WRITTES STATEMEST OF THE 1. 1.. 0.
first letter on the subject written by the Office, that to the Polish
Government of IO July, 1920 :

"First. as re~ards the e-.eral auestion as to whether a hfember
i)Itlic 0rgariii.a-tiuncnn ratifwitii restrmtions :icoii\.entioii \vliicli
lis, bwn adol~tcd by rtic Iiir~:riintioii.~lI.:ilii,iir Coiifcrcnc~ iii
~ccordaiicc \vitlii\riiclc qoj of tlie 'ï're;ityuf \'ers:iilles, ttir OiTiccis
of opiniuii tli:i;iiiy siizti ~~r~~cttlcoiild appcar io I>ecoiitrnry ro
tlir spirit of tlic Inboiir part of rtic 'ï'renty.Article qoj uf tlit: Tricnty
i)ro\.idcs th31 tlic (:onference itself sliall coiisitler the rnotlilications
Îequired by the special circumstances of any country, and it was.
undoubtedly the intention of the Treaty that any modifications
necessary should be considered by the Conference and dealt with by
it in the convention if it thought fit. hloreover, the usual procedure
with regard to the ratification of a treaty with reservations is
dependent upon the acquiescence of the otlier contracting parties.
Reservations in regard to an ordinary treaty are made at the time
of the forma1 deposit of ratifications and it is open to any of the
other contracting parties to Say at the time of the exchange of
ratifications whether they accept them. In the case of the conven-
tions adopted by an international labour coiiference there is no-
exchange of ratifications and therefore no opportunity for other
Statesto express assent or dissent when the ratifications are commu-
nicated to the Secretary-General of the League.
Furtliennore, the new procedure in the negotiation of labour
treaties initiated by the creation of the Internatioiial Labour
Conference brings into the field of negotiatiori other interested
parties than the States concemed, namely, representatives of
organizations of employers and of workers. Since these represent-
atives are parties in the negotiation of the convention for which
the Conference as a whole is responsible, it would seem that they
should also have the opportunity of giving their acquiescence in a
reservatioii and this would appearto be dificult Savein the case that
the Conference itself should deal with the matter in the maiiner
provided in Article 4oj as regards special mo<lificatiorisdesired by
any particular country."

20. The view that reservations to ratificritions of international
labour coiivcntions are inadmissible was restatecl in detail in a
memoraritlum subinitted by the Director of the International
Labour Office to the Committee of Experts for the Progressive
Codification of International Law of the Leagiie of Nations on
31Xlarch, 1927. This XIemorandum put fonvard three main argu-
ments : that "the rights which the treaties have conferred on non-
govemmental interests in regard to the adoption of international
labour conventions\~~ould be o\.erruled if the consent of govemments
aione snould suffice to modify the substance and detract from the

effect of the conventions" ;that the object of the framers of the
Constitution, in imposing on the Conference an obligation to give
preliminary consideration to the special circumstances of each
country, was to prevent States from pleading, after the adoption
of a convention, a special situation which had not been submitted WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE 1.L. O. 231

to the Conference's judgment ; and that, since the object of the
International Labour Organization is to safeguard conditions of
labour against the detrimental influence of international competi-
tion, international labour conventions must establish a network
of mutual obligations among the varions States and it is essential
that exact reciprocity should be preserved in these obligations. The
text of the Memorandum is attached hereto as part of Appendix IV.

The Memorandum was examincd by the Committee, which,
without endorsing al1 the details of its argument, reportcd to the
Council of the League that the main contention of the Memorandum
is entirely accurate and that "it rightly draws attention to the
objections to any unilateral reservation or modification which a
State might claim to attach to its assent". The relevant passage
of the report of the Committee of Experts and an extract from the
Resolution adopted by the Council are also attached hereto as
parts of Appendix IV. In accordance with the Resolution adopted

by the Council, the Report of the Committec of Experts and the
Memorandum of the International Labour Office werc commvni-
cated to al1Members of the League of Nations.
21. In 1932, the Governing Body of the International Labour
Office considered, aspossiblc alternatives, proposals for the introduc-

tion of a procedure for the amendment of conventions and proposals
for permitting reservations to conventions approved by a Reserv-
ations Committee of government, employer and worker represent-
atives to be appointed by the International Labour Conference
(and including ad hoc members appointed hy the Governing Body
for each particular case on the basis of their special tcchnical know- .
ledge of the convention in question) for the purpose of examining
the reasonahleness and acceptability of the proposed rescrvations.
On the report of its Standing Orders Committee the Governing

Body decided to take no immcdiate action in the matter. The
question has not been taken up again by the Governing Body since
that time. The relevant passage of the Report of the Standing
Orders Committee, as approved hy the Governing Body and the
document suhmitted to the Committee by the International Labour
Office, are reproduced in Appendix V.

22. The practice foiiowed by the International Labour Organiz-
ation in regard to reservations is reflected in the ~ractice of the
Iiitcrii:~ti~~iiI.nlioui.(Jnïc.,.iiir<.giir~Ito ri~ri~ \\.~[h the
S~~r~:t:~r\~-i,~~i~ raItic L.iiitt.~IS..ti~iof (:\,IInriui~; a11i~nrti.
culars ofratifications. Article 5 of the Treaty Registration ~&ula-
tions, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations
on 14 December, 1946, ta give effect to Article 102 of the Charter
of the United Nations, specifies that a specialized agency registering

a treaty or international agreement under Article 4 of the Regula-
tions shall certify that the text is a true and complete copy thereof
and includes al1 reservations made by the parties thereto. In view WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE I. L. O. 233

of the modifications subject to which the convention wiil be applied
to the varions non-metropolitan territories. One convention, the
Labour Standards (Non-MetropolitanTerritories) Convention, 1947,
is essentially a procedural device for the purpose of securing a more
precise definition by Members of the obligations accepted by them
in respect of non-metropolitan territones under other conventions.
In some cases a declaration at the time of ratification is not required
as a condition of exercising a discretionary power left to Members
by the convention, but the Member is only entitled to exercise the

discretionary power to the estent indicated in its first annual'
report on the application of the convention. Thus, certain conven-
tions give the parties a discretion to exempt under-developed areas
from their provisions but limit this provision to areas specified
in the first annual report on the application of the convention
(Safety Provisions (Building) Convention, 1937, Article j ;Conven-
tion on Statistics of Wages and Hours of Work, 1938, Article 23 ;
Medical Esamination of Young Persons (Industry) Convention,
1946, Article 8 ; Medical Examination of Young Persons (Non-
Indnstrial Occupations) Coiivention, 1946, Article 7; Labour
Inspection Convention, 1947, Article 29 ; Employment Services

Convention, 1948, Article 12 ; Labour Clauses (Public Contracts)
Convention, 1949, Article 7 ; Protection of Wages Convention,
1949, Article 17 ; Fee-Charging Employment Agencies Convention
(Revised), 1949, Article 15). The Protection of Wages Convention,
1949, permits the exclusion from its application of certain categories
of persons subject to particulars of such categories being included
in the firstannnal report (Article 2 (3))The Nigration for Employ-
ment Convention (Revised), 1949, specifies that the provisions of
a particular article apply to federal States, "in so far as the matters
dealt with are regulated by federal law or regulations or are subject
to the control of federal administrative authorities" and requires
Members taking advantage of this provision to indicate in their

annual reports the estent to which the matters in question are
regulated by federal law or regulations or are subject to the control
of federal administrative authonties (Article6 (2)).Certain conven-
tions contain provisions permitting Members to vary certain of their .
requirements in their relations with each other by mutual agree-
ment (e.g. Old-Age Insurance (Industry, etc.) Convention, 1933,
Article 13 (2); Maintenance of Migrants' Pension Rights Convention,
1935, Article 6). In one case certain requirements of a convention,
may be varied by the Member subject to certain conditions ;parti-
culars of such variations are to be communicated by the PIember
to the Director-General of the International Labour Office who

is to notify the Members of the Organization (Accomn~odation
of Crews Convention (Revised), 1949, Article 1 (5)).
In al1of these cases the qualifications of the obligations assumed
by ratification which are permissible and the procedure to be
followed by a Member wishing to qualify its obligations are defined 234 WRITTES ST.4TEhIEST OF THE 1. L.O

by the convention itself ; they are therefore a part of the terms
of the con\rentioii as approved by the Conference when adopting
the convention and both from a legal and from a practical point
of view are in no way comparable to reservations.

24. Apart from these cases iii which Meinbers have, in pursuancc
of the special pro\risions of particular conventions, or bji the provi-

sioiis of the Constitution itself relating to non-metropolitan terri-
tories, einbodied in or attachcd to their instrument of ratification
n declaration limiting in soine rcspect the obligations assiimed hy
ratification, there arc also threc otlicr typcs of case in which limit-
ations upon, or explanations of, the asseiit giwn to a conventioii
inust be distinguished from reservations. In certain cases conven-
tions have been ratified conditionally upon ratification by other
Alembers. The distinction betweeri ratification subject to a suspen-
sive condition and ratificatioii subject to a reservatioii appears to
have been generally accepted in international practice. The ques-
tion \\.hether a convention shall be ratified subject to a condition

that the ratification \vil1only take effect when certain other ratifica-
tions have been registered is purely a question of policy, and any
difficulties which a conditional ratification may create are not of
a legal character and will iiot make impossible the registration of
the ratification. In a few cases the docoine~its communicating
ratification have been so draftcd as to limit geographically the
csteiit of the obligations undertakcii, and no question has been
rxised iii regard to the validity or effcct of such a limitation. In
a few cases Jfembers have, wheii ratifying, placed on record their
iiiiderstanding of the meaiiing to bc attached to a particular provi-

sion of a convention, gencrnlly spccifying that in so statirig their
uiiderstanding of the position they are iiot to he regarded as rnaking
a reservation ; no questioii has arisen hithcrto iii regard to the
effect of such understandings. 111certain cases of this kind there
is clearly no problem. Thus a reqiiiremeiit by a legislative body
thnt the esecutive shall satisfy itself of certain thiiigs, by enquiry
from other States or from aii iiitcriiatioiialrganization orotheriirise,
hcfore communicating ail instriimcnt of ratification, or shall exer-
cisc iii a certain maiincr a discretioii left to national cornpetcnt
authorities by a convention, are not reservations and \vil1not makc

it impossible to register the ratification. Particiilars of these various
types of cases are contained in Appendis VII. They do not qualify
the fact that in no case has a ratificatioii beeri registered subject
to a substantive rescr\ratiori.

25. The foregoing survey of the Constitution and constitutional
practice of the International Labour Organization has now madc
it possible to summarize the groiinds or1which international labour
conventions have been regarded as inherently incapable of ratifica-
tion subject to a reservation. WRITTES STATEhIEST OF THE 1.L. O. 235
(a) The underlying pnnciple, on the basis of which customary

international law recognizes that reservations to the ratification of
international conventions may be regarded as admissible in certain
circumstances, is that such conventions are simply an expression
of.the will of, and in a sensc the exclusive property of, the States
which are parties to them, and are subject to modification at any
time if the consent of al1 the States concerned can be obtained.
Ll'herethis principle is applicable it is natural to regard a reservation
which is in effect a modification of the provisions of the treaty iii
its application to one or more parties, as being admissible if it
receives the assent of the other parties. In such cases the question
whcther a State may hecome a party to a convention, in relation to

a limited number of the parties thereto \\,ben other parties object
to its reservation, may arise.
(b) The underlying principle on the basis of which a reservation
inay be regarded as admissible in certain circumstances has no
application to international labour conventions ;such conventions

are not the exclusive property of the parties theretobut are governed
by special rules consisting of the accepted principles of treaty law
and practice as qualified by the Constitution of the International
Labour Organization, the body of accepted constitutional practice
which has developed in thc course of years on the basis of this
Constitution, and the relevant provisions of the individual convcn-
tions.

(c) The special consideratioiis applicable to international labour
conventions may be summarized as follows :
(i) they are adopted by a conference with a unique tripartite
composition by a special procedure provided for in an international
instrument of a constituent character, the Constitution of the

International Labour Organization ;and in this respect they are
in a position entirely different from al1 other international instm-
inents ;
(ii) the governing constituent instrument, the Constitution
of the International Labour Organization, contemplates the sub-
mission of conventions to national competent authorities, normally
legislatures, in the form in which they were adopted bythe Confer-

ence, and provides for ratification when the consent of the com-
petent authority is obtained ;
(iii) the governing constituent instriiment, the Constitution of
the International Labour Organization, grants to employers' and
workers' organizations rights to invoke, and to initiate procediires
in connexion with the application of, the provisions of conven-
tions, and gives their representatives an important place in the
international organs entrusted with the supervision of such appli-

cation, and the individual conventions provide for consultation
with such organizations in connexion with the application of a
16236 \\'KITTES STATEIIEST OF TH13 1. L.O.

\\riderange of provisions leaving certain matters to national discre-
tion ; the piirposc of al1 these provisions \\rould be completely
frustrated by the acceptance of reservations in regard to which
governrnciits aloiie had been consulted ancl, in the absence of any
special procediirc provided for in conventions for examining and
decidiiig iipon the acceptability of reservations, the only procedure
by nhich the riccessary consent of non-governmental elements
could be validly obtained would be that of the :~doption by the
International Labour Conference of a rcvisiiig convention incor-
poratiiig the cffect of the reservation ;

(iv) internatioii:~l labour conventions are designed to promote
uniformity of conditions among the parties exccpt in so far as the
particiilar convention leaves matters to national discretion on the
ground that uniformity is unattainablcor undesirable ; the accept-
ance of rcservatioiis is therefore inconsisteiit with their wholc
object ;

(v) the goverriiiig constituent instrument, the Constitution of
the International Labour Organization, pro\~itlcs a procedure for
the inodificatioii of the provisions of conventions to rneet special
circumstaiices, and a widc range of furthcr procediires, adapted
to the circiiriistnnces of individual cases, arc provided for hy the
terms of the varioils conventions ; provisioii has therefore been
made for the iiecessary flexibility by othcr procediires expressly
sanctioncd by the Constitution and thc Coiifercncc ;

(vi) thc go\~criiitig constituent iiistruiiicnt, the Constitution of
the International Labour Organization, provides for a system of
reports as an alternative to the acceptance of international obliga-
tions in cases in nrhich a hlernber is not in a position to acccpt the
full obligations of a convention.

26. It is for the Court to consider how far the pririciples \\.hich
have becri follo\retl in respect of international laboiir conventions
have aiiy bearing upon or application to the pri~blemswhich may
arise in respect of conventions adopted or nppro\wd by thcGeneral
Asscnibly or by organs of other interiiatioiial organizations which
may exercisc pre-legislative functions similar in general charactcl-
to those entriistc<l to the International 1.aboiir Conference. WRITTES STATE>IEST OF THE 1. L. O.-.4PPESDICES 237

Appendix 1

CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR
ORGANIZATION

A certified copy of the Constitution of the International Labour
Organization, as now in force, has beenommiinicated to the Registrar
together with the present memorandum.

Appendix II

CONVENTIONS AXD RECOiZAIENDA'TIONS 1919-1949

A copy ofthe volume "Conventions and Recommendations 1g1g-194g"
published hy the International Labour Office and containing al1 con-
ventions and recommendations adopted by the International Labour
Conference, from rgrg to 1949. has been communicated to the Registrar
together with the present memorandum.

Appendix III

0I:FIClAL CORRESPONDENCE

CONCERNING THE RATIFICATION OF
CERTAIN INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS

I. LETTER SENT ON 16 JUNE, 1920, BY THE DIINISTER OF L:!ROOUR OF
POLAND TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE

hlonsieur le Directeur,
En nous référant à votre circulaire du 26 février dern., nous vous
demandons de oulo loibrien nous dire si vous considérez comme possible
la ratification des projets de conventions adoptés par la Conférence
internationale du Travail sous certaines réserves.Le Traitéde Versailles
ne tranchant pas ce doute, nous vous serions reconnaissants de vouloir
bien nous communiquer votre opinion là-dessus, ou bien la demander,
le cas échéant.au Conseil d'administratioii du Bureau.
C'est surtout les projets de conventions concernant le travail des
femmes qui présenteraient pour nous certaines difficultés dans leur
application. Nous craignons que l'introduction du repos de douze
semaines prévu pour les femmesen couches par le projet de convention
n'impose à l'industrie et au trésord'Etat des difficultés financièrestrop
considérables auxquelles, dans les conditions actuelles, ils seraient hors
d'état de faire face. Le projet de loi que le ministère du Travail vient
d'élaborereii vue d'unifier la législationactuelleinent en vigueur sur les238 lVRIlTEX STBTEMESTOF THE 1. L. O.-APPESDICES

terres polonaises, prévoyait un repos de huit semaines et constituait un
certain progrès en comparant avec la législationantérieure. Pour mettre
ce projet en accord avec la Convention de \\'ashington, le ministère
propose de l'amender de sorte qu'un repos de douze semaines serait
introduit par étapes.
I.'iiitro~liictionrruo ri:i?urciis~.(IIIrepos diiiiides i~iiinic,sz lici!rt~,r:i
chez nous 1~arcill~~riic ntdcs tiiificultcs ~,csn;ioiiiié~î131 1t.si011<11riuiis
exceutionnelles de notre situation économioueactuelle. Ainsi. à Lodz.
nutri grand ceiitre tt-xtilc, I'iisiiieélectrirluc.'~t:iiitIiors d'ït,tt di: fniiriiir
le cour;iiit:Itout~,sIcî n~:~iiuf;ictiir~scnd:,iit In]ourii?e, c~,rr:~iis'tklili;.
scinciits sont uLlic<.scIctr;iv.,illc.i et cl'e.ii.liiverIeî f~iiirii~si>enrl:iiitla
iiiiit.Sorri: loi pr;\.uir:i ~)rob:~l~lf.iiiciil coiis: liil,ni:i~~I'III:~ir;tr'
iiiinijtiricl IIL.Iîi~spei~dr~r.ernpnr;tir~>inr'i~lts di..[~i,.:ir~uii;~nn~r~i:ii~t
I'inierdictiuii ab~lui (IIItr;i!,:.il <ILiiuil des ft!iiimcj.
Par conséquent, le ministère du Travail ne pourrait probablement
proposer à la Diète de ratifier les Conventions de \\'ashington concer-
nant le travail des femmes que sous réserve que des lois nationales,
décrets du Conseil des iilinistres ou arrétésministériels statueront sur
les dérogations à apporter à leurs dispositions. Le Bureau international
du Travail estime-t-il que cette mani5re de procéderne contient rien de
contraire aux dis~ositions du Traité de Versailles ?
~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~
Les projets de loi que vous trouverez ci-joints, vous apporteront.
hlonsieur le Directeur. des précisionssur la question qiie nous venons de
discuter.
Xcus VOUS demandons ensuité, Moiisieur le Directeur, votre avis sur
la question de ratification du projet concernant le chômage. Nos condi-
tions ne nous permettent pas de s'obliger d'une manière absolue -
comme le demande la convention susmentionnée w seront nommés » -
« shall be appointed ,- de former auprès des bureaux de placement
des comités coiisultatifs composésde patrons et ouvriers. Notre projet
de loien cette matiere prtivoit la constitution de comitks pareils seulement
facultativement. Xous estimons, en outre, que des bureaux de placement
gratuit doivent être gratuits pour les tr:ivailleurs. mais pourraient très
bieii prélever unetaxe modeste despatrons qui recourent àleurs senrices.
Le Bureau croit-il que. dans ces conditions, nous ~ourrions ratifier la
Convention concernànt le chômaze, sans réserves?'Ou, si des réserves
seraient nécessaires,de quelle maniPre devraient-enes êtreformulées ?
Je vous remercie d'avance, Monsieur le Ilirecteur, pour vos renseigne-
ments, etc.

Le Ministre,
(Signé) PEPLO\VSKI.

2. REPLY OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE TO
THE MINISTER OF LABOUR OF POLAND ,ATED IO JULY,1920

Sir,
1 liave the honour to acknowledge tlie receipt of your letter of the
16th June (Ref. No. Dz. Gt. 7021/20), which haç been handed to me by
M.Sokal, the Representative of the Polish Goveriiment on the Governing
Body of the International Labour Office,and to thank you for the vcry
full information which you have been so good as to furnish in reply to
my letter of the 26th February. WRlTTES STATEhlEST OF THE 1. L. 0.-.*PPESDICES 239

.Asregards the questions on which you have asked the opinion of the
International Labour Office, 1 must first point out that the Treaty of
Versailles does not confer any special authority on this Officeto interpret
the texts of the conventions adonted bv the Intern,tional Labour
Si,iif<:rt:ncriior to givc :III)decisii,i; ns t8ithe conditions iiiiiicr iGhiclin
\lc.iiiht!iiftlii:C)r~:iiii~:iliiv<iiiliI>c+:nrirlc<lro r;irify siiclicon\.<;ntiuns.
I'lc 'ï'rc.,t\.iii :\rticl423 oiily prc,\.i<lr-.1:ir III! i~ii~?stiuiii ~liil,iitï
ri:l:iriiigrurlt:inrerprcratioii of t1.c hli<iiir part i>f tlis 'frc~iy or of ail\.
suhscc~ii~~iictoii\ciiiioii c~~iicludcd 1,).tlic .\lriiil>t:rs iiii~ler 11ic teriiis
of that ii:irtcjftliç'frr:;it\,s1i:iIlIN:rvfcrra<lfor dc.cijionto tlie I'erm:iiicnt
Court & International JÜstice.
The International Labour Officeis, however, entirely at the disposal
of the eovernments of the Members in order to render themeverv assist-
ance pGssible as regards such questions and to place at their disposal

considered the questions coniained in your letter and is glad to coinmu-

nicate to you the following observations :

First, as regards the general question as to whether a Member of the
Organization can ratify with reservations a convention which has been
adopted by the International Labour Conference in accordance with
Article 405 of theTreaty of Versailles. the Officeis of opinion that any
such procedure would appear to be contrary to the spirit of the labour
part of the Treaty. Article 405of the Treaty provides that the Confcrence
itself shd consider tliemodifications required bythe specialcircumstances
of any country, and it wnç undoubtedly the intention of the Treaty that
any modifications necessary should be considered by the Conference and
dealt with by it in the convention if it thought fit. Moreover, the usual
procedure with regard to the ratification of a treaty with reservations
is dependent mon the acauiescence of the other contractina ~arties.
Resetvations inyegard to an ordinary treaty aremade at the trmh of the
formal deposit of ratifications and it is open to any of the other contract-
ing parties to Say at the time of exchange of ratifications whether they
accept them. In the case of the conventions adopted by an International
Labour Conference, there is no exchange of ratifications aiid therefore
no opportunity for other States to expiess assent or dissent when the
ratifications are communicated to the Secretary-General of the League.
Furthermore, the new procedure in the uegotiation of labour trcaties
initiated by the creation of the International Labour Confercnce brings
into the field of neeoti-tion other interested oarties than the States
ci,iiceriir~I, n;inicly. rcprcscritntivc.~ tif <,rg.,iiiz;iriuiisof ~niploycri :iiiiI
\i.urkcii. Siiiii. tlt~sï rq>rcs~.ntilti\.esilrc p:iriieiiitlir iiegori:ition of tlic
cunventions for whicli tlie Coiif~~rt~ii ie n iiliolc is rcsi~oiisiblc.it ii.ould
seem that they should also have the opportunity of giaing their acquies-
cence in a reservation and this ivould appear to be difficult Save in the
case that the Conference itself should deal with the matter in the manner
provided in Article 405 as regards the special modifications desired by
any particular country.
As regards tlie Convention concerning the employment of women
before and after childbirth, the Office is pleased to note that Article 16
of the amended text of the 13illbrought forward by the Polish Alinistry
of Labour is in accordance with the Convention adopted at Washington.
Article 26 of the Bill, Iiowever, provides that Article 16 shall not corneinto operation for a period of three years, and that in the meantime
certain transitory measures which are not in conformity with the
\Vashin~ton Convention shall o~erate.
Iïie ~ituatioii :is regardstlli;C~ii~t'i~tioii\~uulil iheriforc ;ipl>carto
be that l'olan<l\r.ould bc uli;,ble to riitily tlic Coiivcn~i(miintil tlie pcriod
of three veaffiIiasel;in~ed!\,lienArticle 16of tlicIa\i. \\hicIl ijin conformitv
with the ~asliingtoh Convention \riIl come into operation.
The obligation of a Member of the International Labour Organization
~iiiderparagraph 7 of Article 4oj of the treaty is to put into effect the
provisions of a convention which it has ratified, and it would therefore
appear clear that theState should not ratify unless it is able to give effect
to this obligation immediately.
As regards the Convention concerniiig the employment of women
during the niglit, Article j of the Bill brought forurard by the I'olish
Ministry of Labour would appear to be iii conformity with the Conven-
tion. If the power given in the latter part of that article to the Alinister
during the night to cIOphours does not in itself constitute a non-fulfilment
of the Convention, the exercise of that power after the period of three
years provided in Article z of the \\'ashington Convention would
undoubtedly be a contravention of the Convention. It may presumably
be assumed that it is not the intention of the Polish Government to
exercise this power otlierwise than in coiiformity with the Convention
and therefore it would appear that so far as this article is concernccl, the
Government miglit proceed ta ratify.
With regard to the special circumstances to ahich you draw attention
as pertaining at Lodz, and the probability that the Polish law will in
consequence contain a clause giving power to the competeiit minister to
suspend temporarily the provisions relating to the prohibition of night
work for women, such a provision would appear to be in accordance
with paragraph a of Article 4 of the Washington Convention, provided
that the article is so drafted as to restrict these operations to cases of
force majeure in circumstances wliich are not of a recurring character.
Finally, as regards the question relating tothe Washington Conveiition
coiicerning uneinployment, 1 find it difficult to understand the obstacle
which appears to present itself with regard tothe application of Article z.
The terms of the article seem to be sufficiently elastic to allow of the
constitution of the committees by alternative methods. It woiild seem
very difficult, however, to admit that the obligation contained in the
Convention woiild be fulfiiled if the appointment of such committees
were not made obligatory.
Secondly, in connexion tvith the same article, both the wording and
tlie intention of the test would appear to be perfectly clear as regards
the non-payment of fees by ail parties who use the employment agencies
referred to and any provision to the contrary would not seem to be in
conformity with tlie Convention.
In conclusion, 1 have to thank you oii behalf of the International
Labour Office for the verv com~lete and valuable information which
\wu 11:~i.I.r.riigo011eiioii111'II~;~)IIIc~i~~~criniriIllitltc cotiiidcotioi~
1:l I Ici Ici 1 the I1olisliGov~~riiinviittu rliç C'un~ciitions
adopted at \Vashington; and 1 venture to express the hope that on
further consideration you \vil1 be able to malie such changes in the projected legislation as will enablc the Government of Polaiid to ratify
the Conventions in question.

1 am, etc.
(Signed) ALBERT 'r~obl.4~.

Director.

3. SUMMARY OF THE ABOYIi CORRESPONDENCE, AS COM%IUNICI\TED TO

THE MEIIBERS OF THE OKGANIZATION IN THE "OFFICIAI. BULLETIN OF THE
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE" '

On 26 June, 1924, Poland ratified without reservation the Unemploy-
ment Conventioii, 1919 (Con\rcntion No. 2).

B.-India

1. EXTRACT FROM A LETTIIII SIINT BY THE SECRETARY 01' STATE FOR

INDIA TO THE SECKETARY-GENERAL OF THE LEAGUE OP NATIONS, DATED
12 JULY, 1921

2. EXTRACT FR031 THE REPLY OF THE ACTING SECRETARY-GENEHAL OF
THE LEAGUE OF XATIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA, DATED
22 JULY, 1921

3. LEïTER FR031 THE DIRECTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAI. LABOUR OFFICE
TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA, DATED 24 SEPTEMRER, 1921

This correspondence was communicated to the International Labour

Conferencea aiid to the States Members in the Oficial Bulletins. The
Minimum Age (Industry) Convention, 1919 (Convention No. 5).has not
been ratified by India.

In 1937, the International Labour Conference adopted the Minimum

Age (Industry) Convention (Kevised), 1937 (Convention No. 59): this
Convention also has not been ratified by India.

Sot reproduce<l,sce Oficiul Iltrllrtiir of the InIeriioIional Lnbotrr Oflice. \'ol. II,
CiOctober, 1920, Su. 5.p. r8.
a Sot reproducr<l. sçe InlerriationaLaboirr Conference.Third Session, Ceneva,
ig21. Vol. II,pp. 1043-1050.
Oficial Bz<lleIinof16e lnlevltulionLabouv OfiiceVol. IV, zoJuly, iyzr, No. 3.
[>p.~g-23. and12 Octol>er,igzi,No. 15,pp.4.".1. LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE LBACUE OF NATIONS
TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE INTERNATIOKAL LABOUI< OFFICE, DATED
II JULY, 1gzS

Ilonsieur le Directeur,

Lai 1'honneur.de porter à votre connaissance que AI.le Sous-Secrétaire
d' tat aux Affairesétrangères de la République de Cuba m'a transmis,
en exécution de l'article4oj du Traitéde Versailles et des articles corres-
pondants des autres traités de paix, la ratification formelle, par S. Ex.
le Président de la République de Cuba, à la Convention tendant à limiter
à 8 heures par jour et à 48 heures par semaine, le nombre des heures de
travail dans les établissements industriels, adoptée par la Conférence
internationale du Travail à sa première session, Li'ashington, le
zg octobre-zg novembre 1919.
La ratification de cette convention ,serait, d'après une lettre que ]'ai
reçue le 25 mai 1gz8 du secrétaire d'Etat aux Affaires étrangèresde la
République de Cuba y insérant une dépêche câblographique qu'il vous
avait adressée le même jouret d'après l'instrument de ratification dont
copie est jointeh la présente,,donnéesous la réserveque l'application de
la convention de la part de 1'Etat cubain serait subordonnéeaux disposi-
tions législativesactuellement en vigueur. Par conséquent, je vous prie,
Monsieur le Directeur, de bien oulo loir e faire connaître si possible l'avis
du Bureau international du Travail en ce qui concerne l'admissibilité
de cette ratification donnée sousréserve.
Je saisis, etc.
Pour le Secrétaire général :
Le Conseiller juridiqur:
du Secrétariat,
(Signé J. A. RUERO.

The instrtrtnentof ratificationwns wordedas follows:
[Trnnslatioit froin the Spanish]

"lerardo Machado y illorales, Presideïit of the Republic of Cuba

To al1to whom these presents come, greetings :
1 hereby give notice: That, at the International Labour Conference
held in the City of Washington, United States of America, from zgOcto-
ber to zg November, 1919, a Convention limiting the hours of work in
industrial undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week
was adopted.

That the said Convention, in the Eiiglish and French languages, waç
accepted by the representatives of the Republic of Cuba and approved
by the Senate of the Nation on 16 May of this year with the reservation
that its application by the State ofCuba shall be subject to the provisions
of the legislation in force on the matter. \\'RITTEXSTATEZlEST OF THE 1.L. 0.-APPEXDICES 243
Therefore 1 hereby declare that 1 ratify the whole of the said Conven-
tion and promise to cause it to be enforced and observed in al1its details,

subject to the reservation ulth which it was approved.
In witness whereof, 1 send these presents signed with my own hand,
authenticated with the seal of the Nation and countersigned by the
Secretaryof State, to be deposited in the archives of the General Secre-
tanat of the League of Nations.

Given in Havana at the Presidential Palace on 30 May, 1928.

.....
President.
. . . . . . . .
Secretary for Health and IVelfare

and Acting Secretnry of State."

The Director of the lnternational Labour Officereceived on the snme
date two otlicr similar letters from the Secretary-General relating to the
ratification with reservations by Cuba of the \\'eekly Rest (Industry)
Convention, I~ZI, and the Inspection of Emigrants Convention, 1926.

The instruments of ratification relatiiig to these t\vo Conventions werc
expressed in the same terms as the above instrument of ratification.

2. LBTTER FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE INTI!HNATIONAL LABOUR OI'FICE
TO THE SECHETARY-GENERA OL THE I.EAGUE OF NATIOXS, Dr\TliO
31 JULY, 1928

hlonsieur le Secrétaire ..néral
I'xr (le3 lerrrcs n,,:.jI<,~I~I/I<Iz, :{I{,5132,O24 tcL.i 13j1.331~14; cil
date du i I~iiillet.vous :ivt.zbien i.<iulurnttr;iiiciiicttrc coliic iles instr~i-
nicntj de ratification piir 5 ICsc.Ic I1r;sideiit <Ic I;il2CpiiI1Iiq1i(eI' iih:i
des Converitioiiscoiicerii:iiit Insiiiip1ific;itiuiide 1'iiisl)tiilesGmigrnnts
:ihord des nnvircs, ci~iiccrii:iiitI';il)plicationdii rcpoi hc.bduiii;itl:iired:~iii
les 2tahlisscmeiit+ iii(lustric1set tvnil:iii:ilimirt:r:tS Iicurc, ixir iour<:t
à 48 heures par semaine le nombre des heures de travail dansies ktablis-
sements industriels. Vous avez bien voulu, en mémetemps, me signaler
que, d'après une lettre du 25 mai 1g28 qui vous a étéadresséepar RI.le
Secretaire d'lhat aux Affaires étrangèresde In RépubliquedeCuba ainsi
que d'après le texte même des instruments de ratification, ces trois

conventions sont ratifiées « avec la réserve que leur application, de la
part de 1'Etat cubain, serasubordonnée aux dispositions dela législation
en vigueur en la matière », et vous me demandez de vous faire connaître
l'avis du Bureau international du Travail quant àl'admissibilitéde cette
r~~erve.
En vous accusant réception de ces communications, dont je vous
remercie tres vivement, j'ai l'honneur de faire connaître que la réserve
inscrite dans les instruments de ratification des troisconventionssusmen-
tionnées ne me paraît pas admissible. J'ai déjàeu l'occasion d'exposer,244 WRITTES STATE>IEST OF THE 1. L. O.-AI'PESDICES

dans un mémoireque je vous ai adressé à la date du 31 mars 1926et qui
a étécommuniqué aux Membres du Conseil de la Société desNations
lezo avril 1gz7~document C. 212. 1927. V). les motifs d'ordre juridique
pour lesquels laratification, sous réserves,descoriventions internationales
du travail ne me semble pas pouvoir êtreadmise. L'opinion expriméepar
le Bureau dans ce mémoirea étéformellement approuvée par le Comité
d'experts pour la codification progressive du droit international dans un
rapport adoptépar lui le 24 mars 1927et soumis aux Membres du Conseil
le 20 avril 1927 (document C. 211. 1927. V). Je crois donc inutile de
revenir sur les arguments qui ont étédéveloppésdans ces documents et
me bornerai à constater qu'ils paraissent s'appliquerà la réserve formulée
par le Gouvernement cubain. En subordonnant l'application des conven-
tions dont ils'agità l'étatdelalégislationnationale, cette réserverenverse
complètement le rapport juridique que doivent htablir les conventions :
c'est la législation nationale qui doit se modeler sur les dispositions des
conventions et non point les dispositions des conventions qui doivent
s'adapter à la législation nationale,
Cette doctrine a étérappeléepar la Commission chargéepar la SIi!ie.
session de la conférenceinternationale du Travail d'examiner le résumé
desrapports présentéspar lesgouvernements en exécutionde l'article 40s
du Traité de Versailles, dans le passage suivant de son rapport :

iiI. Les conventions sont des traités internationaux. En vertu des
règles généralesdu droit public international er des dispositions
relatives au travail dans les traités de paix, les Etats qui ratifient
sont tenus d'appliquer sans aucune restriction sur tout leur territoire
le contenu des conventions, l'article 421 du Traité de Versailles et
les articles correspondaiits des autres traités de paix demeurant
réservés.
2. La cqnséquencedecette obligation est que la législationnatio-
nale des Etats qui ratifient doit êtremise en harmonie avec les
conventions et appliquée en fait. B

Les conventions internationales ayant pour objet d'instituer des
normes stables qui échappent aux fluctuations et aux mouvements du
droit interne, la réserve formulée par le Gouvernement cubain a en
réalité poureffet d'annuler totalement l'engagement international qui
doit résulter de la ratification et prive cette dernièredetoute signification
juridique.
Ilans ces conditions, les ratifications dont il s'agit ne me semblent pas
pouvoir &treadi~iisestelles quelles et, si vous partagez ma niariière de
voir à ce sujet, vous jugerez sans doute opportun de surseoir à leur
enregistrement. Je me propose d'ailleurs d'attirer l'atteiitioii du Gouver-
nement cubain sur la doctrine qui a étéconstamment soutenue en cette
matière par le Bureau iiiternational du Travail dans les cas analogues et,
en mêmetemps, de lui demander des précisions sur la portée exacte
qu'il attache àla réservedont il s'agit. Dèsque j'aurai reçu une réponse
du Gouvernement cubain à ce sujet, je ne inanquerai pas de vous en
informer.
Veuillez agréer, etc.
(Sicfié) .~LBERT THOSIAS. WRITTES STATEalEXT 01: THE 1. L. 0.-.U'PESDICES
245

3. LETTER FROhI THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE LEAGUIi OF NATIONS
TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE INTIiRNATIONAL LABOUR OFI'ICE, DATED
23 AUGUST,1928

Monsieur le Directeur,
T'ai I'lionneur de vous accuser réception de la lettre du ?r iuillet
- .
de;iiicr. no I)/hoo 2001,1Ci, piir la~li~l~lle'vc~~L~i bieii voiiluriircporisc
aux micniics dii ir <IIiiiiiiie niois (~l<l~i3ilio2, ~I:/ii:i.',62~, .~l3ljr~jl
zi47) , e f:iirc Ilart dii ~)oiiir(lc'vile du I.iiirr;iiiiiiternn(IIIl'rnv311
en ce IIIIIconccriic I:r;iritic:itioii, pIrrGoii\~c.rricinentil1:iIl;:l>iil)li~liir
de Ciibl. des Coii\~ciirir~ncsoiicc.rii;inlIn siml)lific;itinn de I'iiis~~ciesoid
c'migr;tntsi I>orcldes n,i\.irvs, I':ip~>licrttrliirrpos Iiebdomnclnirc cl:iris
Icj ~t;ibliisciiiciiti iiidiitrit*ttt:nil:~n:I liriiitc{iS tieurcs {~nrjuur er

i 4S Iieiiies pir.;ciii:ii1,.iit,iiibrc clesIitiirei clcrrn\I:LIIles <:t:il)li:~e-
msnts iiiduitriels, avec la réserve que leur application, de la part de
I'Etat cubain, sera subordonnée aux dispositions de la législation en
vigueur sur la matière.
Vous avez bien voulu me faire part de l'avis du Bureau international
du Travail au sujet de la ratification des coriventions du travail, sous la

réserve indiquéese basant sur votre ménioiredu 31 mars 1926, comrnu-
niquéaux Rlembres du Conseil de la Société desXations le 20 avril 1927,
ainsi que sur la doctrine soutenue par la Commissioii chargée, par la
onzieme session de la Conférenceinternationale du Travail, d'examiner
le résuiiihdcs r:ilqgortc prCsciitCspar les Kouvrriieriiéntseii esl'cution de
I';irticl40s clii'fr:>ir. ~Ic\:'crsnillet:t1,: tiensi voiis litire si\.oi<LUC
I'opinioii dii I<iiie.tiiiiiici-noriu(IITriv;iil i cc sujet ~.uiicorcleciitikrt-

ment avec celle du Secrétariat
Dans ces conditions, je me propose d'accuser simplement réception au
Gouvernement de la République de Cuba des. lettres par lesquelles il
voulait bien me notifier ia ratification des conventions sus-indkiuées et
d'attendre la réponse qu'il poiirra adresser à votrelettre, avant de prendre
une décisionen ce qui concerne cette matière.
Veuillez agréer, etc.

Pour le Secrétaire général:
Le Conseiller juridique du Secrétariat,

(Signé) J. A. Busno.

4. I.ETTER FROM THE DIKECTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL I.AUOUII OFFICE
TO THE UNDER-SECRETAR OYF STATli FOR FOREIGN AI'FAIKS OF CUBA,
DATED 3 .~UGUST1 , 928

Nonsieur le Sous-Secrétaire d'État,
J'ai I'lionneur de vous accuser réception et de vous remercier trèsvive-

ment de votre télégrammedu zj mai dernier, ainsi que de votre lettre
du mémciour le confirmant. Darlesauels vous avez bien voulu m'annoncer
la ratificition par la Répubhclue dé Cuba des six conventions suivantes,
adoptées par la Conférenceinternationale du Travail :

I) Convention concernant l'emploi de la cérusedails la pciiiture ;
2) Convention fixant l'àge minimum d'admission des jeunes gens au
travail en qualité de soutiers et chauffeurs ;246 lVRITrES STATE3LEST OF THE 1. L. O.-APPESDICES

3) Convention concernaiit l'examen médical obligatoire des enfants.
et jeunes gens employés à bord des bateaux ;
4) Convention concernant l'application du repos hebdomadaire dans
les établissements iiidustriels;
j) Convention concernant lasimplification de l'inspection desémigrants
à bord des navires ;
6) Converitioii tendant à limiter à Sheures par jour et B46 heures par
semaine le nombre des heures de travail dans les établissements indus-
triels'.

Par uii télégrammedu 31 mai, confirmépar une lettre du z juin, vous

m'avez en outre annoncé la ratification des Conventions concernant
respectivement le contrat d'engagement et le rapatriement des marins.
31.le Secrétaire généralde la Société desNations vient de m'informer
qu'il a reçu récemment les instruments de ratification desdites conven-
tions par S. Exc. le Président de la République de Cuba, et qu'il a procédé,
le 7 juillet, à l'enregistrement de la ratification de cinq d'entre elles, à
savoir des conventions mentionnées sous iior .Iz et 3, ainsi que des
Conventions concernant le contrat d'engagement et le rapatriement des
marins.
M. le Secrétaire généralm'a fait connaître, d'autre part, ainsi que vous
me l'aviez déjà annoncé, que les Conventions concernant l'application
du repos hebdoniadaire dans les établissements industriels, concernant
la simplification de l'inspection des émigrants à bord des navires et

tendant à limiter à 6 heures par jour et à 46 heures par semaine le
nombre des heures de travail dans les établissements indust~iels, étaient
ratifiéesNavec la réserveque leur application, de la part de l'Etat cubain,
sera subord$niiée aux dispositions de la Iégislatioii en vigueur sur la
matière u. ktaiit donné que, jusqu'à préseiit, aucune ratification sous
réserved'une con\-ention internationale du travail n'a étéenregistrée au
Secrétariat de la Sociétédes Nations, conformément à la procédure
prévue à I'articlc 406 du Traité de \'ersailles, le Secrétaire généralm'a
demandé, avant de procéder à leur enregistrement, l'avis du Bureau
international du Travail quant à l'admissibilité de telles ratifications
sous réserve.
Je crois donc utile de vous indiquer brièvement l'opinion du Bureau

à ce sujet. Bieii que les traités de paix n'aient conféréati Bureau inter-
national du Travail aucune autorité spéciale pour donner des avis sur
les conditions daiis lesquelles un Etat Membre de l'organisation peut
ratifier les coii\~entions adoptées par la Conférence internationale du
Travail, le Bureau ne croit cependant pas devoir s'abstenir d'exprimer
son opinion sur des qtiestions qui touchent aux intbrêtsvitaux de l'Orga-
nisation internationale du Travail. C'est aiiisi oue le Bureau a deià été
amené à exposer son opinion quant à l8admi;sibilité des ~atifications
sous réserve, iiotamment dans des échanges de correspondance avec le
Gouvernement polonais en 1920 et avec le Gouvernement de l'Inde en
iyzi. Or. i.ituiijoiirs soutenu-cc ,:itl~ejr:6th iicceptC~pilr IPSptil~\.er-
nc,mcnts ii1t6rcssCî et ii';s0111t.v~(:c.sot>ser\.;~tions<lI:Lpxrt d'aiiciiii
II: m r d I'O~iisatinn . .tiuc de tcllej ratiiications ne s<ii>as
admissibles. II s'est aGpuyéen particulier sur les arguments suivant; :

En son paragraphe 3, l'article 405 du Traité de Versailles stipule qu'en
« formant une recommandation ou un projet de convention d'une
application générale, la Conférence devra avoir égard aux pays dans IVRITTES STATEIIEST OF THE 1. L. O.-APPESDICES 247

lesquels le climat, le développement incomplet de l'organisation indus-
trielle ou d'autres circonstances particulières rendent les conditions de
.l'industrie essentiellement différentes, et elle aura à suggérer telles modi-
fications qu'elle considérerait comme pouvant être nécessaires pour
~épondreaux conditioiis propres à ces pays 11.Il résulte de cette disposi-
tion qu'il appartient à la Conférence elle-méme d'examiner, avant
l'adoption desprojets de convention, les modalités qui peuvent être
requises pour tenir compte de la situation spécialede certaiiis pays et
d'iiisérer dans ces projets les modalités qui lui paraissent justifiées par.

les circonstances. Le texte des projets de convention étant ainsi arrêté
erga ofnnespar la Conféreiice, lesEtats hlembres sonttenus de le soumettre
ià l'autorité ou aux autorités dans la compétence desquelles rentre la
matière en vue de la transformer en loi ou de prendre des mesures d'un
autre ordre » (article 405. paragraphe j) ; si l'autorité ou les autorités
compétentes accordent leur consentement à la ratification d'un projet de
convention, 1'Etat BIembre est tenu en outre : I) de commuiiiquer a sa
ratification formelle au Secrétaire général » et 2) de prendre ctelles
mesures qui seront nécessaires pour rendre effectives les dispqsitions de
ladite convention n (article 405, paragraphe 7). Ainsi, les Etats sont
libres de donner ou noii leur adhésion aux projets de convention, mais

s'ils procèdent à la ratification de l'un d'eux, ils ne peuvent altérer la
valeur de ses dispositions par des conventions ou des déclar t' ioiis
spéciales. Les dispositions d'un projet de convention forment un tout et,
eii cas de ratification, doi\,e~it être appliquées intégralement et sans
réserves.
L'impossibilité d'admettre la ratification sous réserves des conventio~is
internationales du travail se dégage d'ailleurs nettement de toute la
procédure nouvelle instituée par la partie XII1 du Trait6 de Versailles
pour la négociation et la ratification de ces conventions, procédure qui
diffère sur plusieurs points essentiels de la procédure diplomatique

traditionnelle.
Il est reconnu que l'admissibilitéd'une ratificationsous réser\~esdépend
du consentement des autres parties contractantes. Dans la proccdure
traditionnelle, ce consentement peut êtresollicitéet donnéau moment de
l'échange officiel des ratifications. Pour les conventions adoptées par la
Conférenceinternationale du Travail, il n'y a pas d'échangedes ratifica-
tions ; les r?tificatioiis sont commu~iiquéesdirectement et séparément
par chaque Etat au Secrétaire généralde la Société des Nations. Daiis
l'hypothèse d'une ratification sous réserves, les autres parties contrac-
tantes n'aüraient ainsi pas la possibilité de donner ou de refuser leur
consentement à cesréserves. Aucun autre svstème d'a~urobatiori rénérale

des réserves,après la clôture de la session ae la Confé;énce,n'a étéprévu
par le traité.Il est donc clair que, si les ratificatjons sous réservesétaient
admises, elles pourraient comporter, pour les États qui ont ratifié. une
telle multiplicité et diversité d'obligations que la portée véritable des
conventions, à savoir l'institution d'engagements strictement récipro-
aues serait annihilée.
De plus, la nouvelle procédure de négociation des conventions du
travail établie parla partie XII1 fait participerà cesnégociationsd'autres
parties intéressées -que les goufernements : les représentants des
organisations d'employeurs et de travailleurs. Du fait que ces représen-
tants participent aux négociations qui incombent à la Conférence tout

entière, il semble qu'ils devraient également avoir l'occasion de donner246 \$'KITTES ST.ATE\IEST OF THE 1. L. O.-AYP1:SI)ICES

leur consentement aux réserves qui pourraient être formulées. Cette
procédure serait toutefois difficile ?iétablir, à moins qiie la Conférence
examine elle-même, dans les conditions prévues B l'article 405. les
modifications spécialesdemandées par tel ou tel pays.
Tels sont les arguments qui paraissent prouver de façon concluante
que la procédure de ratification avec réserves n'a pas étéenvisagée par

les auteurs de la partie XIII.
Le Bureau iiiternational du Travail a eu l'occasion de les exposer, non
seulement dans la correspondance à laquelle j'ai fait allusion, mais aussi
dans un mémoire qu'il a adressé au Secrétaire généralde la Sociétédes
Nations en datedu 31 mars rqzG, et qui a été distribué aux hlembres du
Conseil. le 20 avril 1027. La th6se défendue dans cc mémoire a été
expresséineiit approuvée par le Comité d'experts pour la codification
progressive du droit international, dans un rapport adopté par lui le
24 mars 1927 et distribué aux hlembres du Conseil, le zo avril de la

mêmeannée. Je vous adresse, ci-joint, à titre d'information, un exem-
plaire de chacun de ces documents.
Pour les motifs indiqués ci-dessus, j'ai donc cru +!voir répondre au
Secrétaire uénéralde la Sociétédes Nations qu'à p.em.ère vue, la réserve
introduite p:ir le (;oii\~eriieinent ciibaiii dans Ir,iiistriinieiitjdt ratili-
cati<,ilries tr.:COII\ ciltl~ris .loiit il s',,<il lie nie ]inrn1~~si.i<iriiiisibie.
le Iiiini ;iiiiloiic~cil iiii:iitciiii,î ~iic IL.III,~liettlii iiir~ctcnieilt cil
;apport avec vous à ce sujet. et qÙe jê \,ois demanderais notammerit des
éclaircissemeiits quant à la portéeexacte de la réserve. Sije la comprends

bien. elle sieiiifie aue les conventions en question ne seraient appliq..es.
i ~i;hn <iiicdans chies cl<:ii.iirs diipositiu~is ~IIII 11sont ~>tiimiitra~r~j :L
la Ié~ijlntioiiciikiine <-Ivigueur. II nc voiij i',clinpl>cri ';~(~u'enjubor-
<lonn:iiit ;iiiisi I':ii>i,licatioiid~.jiun\~eiiti;IiI'i'.litt(le In liyijl:itioli en
vigueur, une telle Elause renverserait complètement le rapport juridique
que doivent établir les conventions : c'est la législation nationale qui
doit se modeler sur les dispositions des conventions et non point les
dispositions des conveutioiis qui doivent s'adapter :î la législation natio-
nale. Cette doctrine a étérappelée par la Commission chargée par la
onzième session de la Conférenceinternationale du Travail d'examiner

le résumédes rapports présentés parles gouvernements eii exécution de
l'article 40s du Traité de Versailles, dans le passage suivant de soi1
rapport :
ciI. Les conventions sont des traités internatioiiaux. ISnvertu des

règles généralesdu droit public international et des dispositions
relatives au travail dans les traités de paix, les Etats qui ratifient
sont terius d'appliquer sans aucune restriction surtout leur territoire
le contenu des conventions, l'article 421 du Traité de Versailles et
les articles correspondants des autres traités de paix demeurant
réservés.
2. La cqiiséquencede cette obligation est que la législation natio-
nale des Etats qui ratifient doit être mise en harmonie avec les
conventions et appliquée en fait. »

Les conventions internationales ont pour objet d'instituer des normes
stables. soustraites aux fluctuatioiis et aux mouvemeiits du droit interne.
Une réserve qui subordonne l'application d'une convention à la volonté
du législateur national serait donc inadmissible dans son principe. Elle

aurait pour effet d'annuler totalement l'engagement international que WRITrEN STATEllEKT OC- .HE 1. 1.. 0.-APPESDICES 249.

doit comporter la ratification et priverait cette dernière de sa véritable
signification juridique.
Je vous serais très vivement obligéde vouloir bien attirer l'attention
du Gouvernement cubain sur les considérations qui précèdent et de me
communiquer les observations auxquelles elles pourraient donner lieu

de sa part, en particulier sur la portée exacte que le Gouvernement
cubain attache à la réservedont il s'agit.
Veuillez agréer, etc.

(Signé )LBERTTHOIIIAS.

5. LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE INTERNATIONBL LABOUR OFFICE
IO THE SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE, COMMERCE AND LABOUR OF CUBA,
DATED 3 AUCUST, 1928 . %

Monsieur le Ministre.
I'.ir 1rrrrr.i eii iI:<2.5niai tt,111r liiicl~riiir;. \IIi.<~iis-S~-i:r<.t.~irc.
ri'Et.~t-1 I>ir.\.oii~iirii':iiiiiuiic~rI:I r.<iiric:iriS.p.si. 1.: 13r;si.i~iit

<IV l:I<C~~iihli~~ii~ t'iit,%Ir1.1ui~OII\~~:III~OI.,<lout>csini I,C~,iifL~r~ncc
internat~onalê du Travail.
M. le Secrétaire généralde la Société desNations m'a fait connaître
récemment qu'il a recu les instrumentsde ratification de ces huit conven-

sihplification de l'inspection des émigrants à bord des nakes et tendant

à limiter à 8 heures par jour et à 48 heures par semaine le nombre des
heures de travail dans les établissements industriels, sont ratifiées avec
la réserve que leur application, de la part de 1'Etat cubain, sera subor-
donnée aux dispositions de la législation en vigueur sur la matière ».
Etant donnéque jusqu'à présent aucune ratification sous réserve d'une
convention internationale du travail n'a ét4 enregistrée au Secrétariat
de la Société desNations, conformément à la procédure prévue à l'arti-
cle 406 du Traité de Versailles, le Secrétaire généralm'a demandé, avant

de procéder à leur enregistrement, l'avis du Bureau international du
Travail quant à l'admissibilité de telles ratifications sous réserves.
T'aicru devoir indiquer à BI.le Sous-Secrétaire d'Etat, en mème temps
qu.'au Secrétaire généralde la Société desNations, l'opinion du Bureau
à ce sujet et j'ai l'honneur de vous faire parvenir ci-jpint copie de la
communication quc j'adresse à M. le Sous-Secrétaire d'Etat.
Veuillez agréer, etc.

(SignéA )LBERTTHOMAS.2j0 WRITTES STATEaIEST OF THE 1. L.O.-APPESDICES

6. LETTLR FROM TIlE UNDER-SECRETAR OY STATE FOR FOREIGN AFPAIRS
OF CURA TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAUOUR OFFICE ,ATE11
20 FEBRUAIIY1 ,930

Sir,
In rep!y to your kind letter (D.600/2001/16)of 2 January last. 1 have
pleajiire in sending you copies of the messages of the Eresident of the
liepublic to the Senate, submitting for its approval the conventions and
recominendations ado~ted hv t-e International Lebour Conference at
its 10th and x~th sessions.
I am grateful to you for the attention which you gave to oiir earlier
letter respecting the publication in the table of ratifications in "Industry
and Labour" of notes to the effect that the conventions adopted by the
sessions of the Laboiir Conferencehave bren submitted to the appropriate
authoritr. The last table contains such references.
As regards the reservations made by the Senate when approving the
Convention concerning the application of the weekly rest in industrial

iindertakings, the Convention concerning the simplification of the
inspection of emigrants on board ship and the Convention limiting the
Iio~irsof work in industrial uiidertakings to S in the day and 48 in the
week, I have to inform you that this Department hopes that the Senate
will shortly re-examine the said Conventions and if possible approve
them \vithout reservations. Your letter of 3 August, 1928, setting forth
the doctrine maintained bv the International Labour Officewith regard
to the ratification of conv~ntions adopted by the Conferences, has been
carcfullv examined bv this Department. whicli is in agr-ement with its
fundamental principies.
1 remain, etc. .
(Szgned) MIGUELANGELCAMPA,

Under-Secretary of State.

011 LU Sr[>teiiiher.1934, C'ut>ara~ihed witt.out reser\.;iriwthe Hoiir.;

oi \i'urk (Indujtry, Coii\~ciiriuiiit,it)(Cuii~~enrionS,i. 1,.

D.-Peru

I. DECISIOS OF THE PERUVIAN GOVERNMEN DA,TED 6 MARCH1 ,936
[T7anslation /rom the Spanish]

Having considered the communications of the Pemvian De1egate to
the International Labour Conference,
In conformity with the Report of the Special Cornmittee appointed bg
the Government Decision of 20 November, 1935,

And in accordancewith the opinion of the Legal Adviser of the Ministry
of External Relations : \VRITTEX STATEZIEXT OF THE 1. L. 0.-APPENDICES 251

IT 1s DECIDED :
I. To approve the following twenty-eight conventions adopted by the
International Labour Conference in its first ten sessions, 1919-1935 :

Convention limiting the hours of work in industrial undertakings to
S in thedav and ASin ,he week INO.rl ,.
Coii\,enliori coiiicrriii~~iiiii:iiilllu)li;cnr (Su.2) .
ioii\,cntion coiizcrriiii!: tlic cii. .lo\iiii:ii~ uf \i.oiiicii befure and after
childbirth (No. 3)
Con,.,tion,conceming the employment of women during the night
(30. 4) ;
Convention fixing the minimum age for admission of children to
industrial employment (No. 5) ;
Convention concerning the night work of young persons employed in
industry (Xo. 6) ;
Convention fixing the minimum aEe for admi-sion of children to
emp1o)ment af sea (Xo. 7) ;
Convention concerning the age foradmission ofchildren to employment
in agriculture (Xo. IO) ;
Convention concernine the.,iehts of association and combination of
:~gririili~ir.ilwork<.rs(Su. 11, ;
Con\.cnrion conccrniiiy ihc iisc of wliiic lead in pninting (So. 1:j);
Cuiiveiitii,ii iuiict riiiitlir aAA)lic:itioii of rlie \r.eckl\.resiiiindustri;il
undertakings (No. Ï4) :
Convention fixing the ininimum age for the admission of young persons
to em~lovment as trimmers or stokers (No. 15.. :
(:on\,c.nt;on' concciriiiis tlic nir iccl csn~iiiii;~iinn of
clilIr II i l 1 1 r u n i 1 1 So. 16) ;
Coiivt:iitii~iicc,iii..riuiiiz \\.urkiii?ii',ci,iiiiitiiftr:i~ci(lciiti(So. T;.,.
Convention concerning workmen's compensation for occupational
diseases (No. 18) ;
Convention concernine eoualitv of treatment for national and foreian
workers as regards Workmeds compensation for accidents (No. 1~ ;7
Convention concernin~ sickness insurance for workers in industry and
commerce and domëstic servants (Xo. 24) ;
Convention concerning sickness insurance for agricultural workers
(No. 25) ;
Convention concerning the regulation of hours of work in commerce
and offices (No. 30) ;
Convention concerning compulsory old-age insurance for persons
employed in industrial or commercial undertakings, in the liberal
professions, and for outworkers and domestic servants (No. 35) ;
Convention concerning compulsory old-age insurance for persons
employed in agricultural undertakings (No. 36) ;
Convention conceming compulsory invalidity insurance for persons
employed in industrial or commercial undertakings, in the liheral
professions, and for outworkers and domestic servants (No. 37) ;
Convention concerning compulsory invalidity insurance for persons
employed in agricultural undertakings (No. 3s) ;
Convention concerning compulsory widows' and orphans' insurance
for persons employed in industrial or commercial undertakings, in
the liberal professions, and for outworkers and domestic servants
(Xo. 39) ;

'72j2 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE 1. L. O.-APPENDICES

Convention con ce min^com~.,sorv widows' and ornhans' insurance
for 1~t:rsoiijerii~~luyed 111 ~,griciiItiirtiliindert:ikiiig,(So. 40) ,
Convention coiiieriiiii:: thc eiiilil-!ni~iit of i\.r,iiiciidiiriiig thc iiiplit
(Revised 1934) (NO;41) ;
Convention concerning workmen's compensation for occupational
diseases (Revised 1934) (No. 42) ;
Convention concerning the employment of women on underground
work in mines of al1kinds (Xo. 45).

z. To limit the said approval, by making it subject to the following
reservations :

(u, iiitlic cnsc oi tlte Con\.ciition on iincmplo~meiit, to thccflcct thnt
su~:rvi;iun of uncml)lo!.mcnr \vil1b~.carricd out by the nutl~urit!, of the
St;itc. nitlioiit t:st:iblisliiuii:.iil\ii)r\. <:~iiiiiiiitt<ir::s
(b) in the case of the Convention on the employment of women before
and after childbirth, to the effect that free attendance by a medical
practitioner or midwife will be considered in the Social Insurance Act ;

(c) in the case of the Convention on industrial accidents, tothe effect
that its application is subject to the modification of Act Xo. 1378 ;
(d) in the case of the Conventions concerning sickness insurance for
persons employed in industry, commerce, domestic service and for
imicultural~ Grkers : concemine c.,nulsorv old-aee insuran.a for
I~~onse~nploycd iri i;iilustri~l niid soiiir;icrci:ii uii,ltrtnkiiijii niIII tlie
Iibcr:.l ~~rt)fr.ssiiiisicIfur uiir\~urk,,rs ;iii<<loiiiciriist-i\.;<iir; coiiceriiing
compuisory old-age insurance for persons employed in agricultural
undertakings ;concerning compulsory invalidity insurance for persons
employed in the same undertakings ; concerning compulsory widows'
and orphans' insurance for the same employees : to the effect that
employees of commercial, agricultural and private undertakings to whom
the Pemvian Act applies are not at present covered by the social

insurance dan made bv the Govemment and that the latter consider a
lump sumdeath benefii more appropriate for the organization of social
insurance in Peru than the pension systcm ;
(e) in the case of al1the conventions approved, to the effect that their
application is subjcct ta the making of special laws on al1these matters
(even if not already legislated on in Peru) or of regulations on mattcrs
requiring them.

3. Tu submit tlie conventions listed in Article I and the reservations
given in Article 2 to ratification by Congress.

To be registered, communicated and published.
Signature of the President of the Republic :

CONCHA. WRITTES SThTElIEST OF THE 1. L. O.-APPENDICES 253

2. LE-ER FROH THE ACTIKG DIRECTOR OF THE ISTERNATIONAL
LABOUR OFFICE TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGK AFFAIRS OF PERU,
DATED 15 MAY, 1936
[fianslation /rom the Spanish]

Sir,
1 have the lionour to acknowledge your letter reference 70-B/I of
14 Blarch, 1936. enclosing the following two documents: (1)the report
sent to your hlinistry by the Cornmittee charged on zo November, 1935.
with studying the conventions and recommendations adopted by the
International Labour Conference ; (2) the Government decision of
6 March, 1936, by which the Government of the Republic clecided to
submit 28 of the saià 'conventions for consideration by the Congress
of Pem.
When thanking you for this communication 1 should like to emphasize
the satisfaction which 1 felt at knowing that the Government of Peru
wishes to adhere to certain of the international labour conventions. This
initiative has al1my sympathy as it corresponds to the aims pdrsued by
the Organization, that is to Say, the establishment of fair and human
labour conditions in the States which fom it, by means of international
legislation.
The full application of the conventions by theStates &lembersof the
Organization determines the international scope of the conventions
hecause it is cl$ar that the object mentioned cannot be attained if the
States derogate from the uniformity aimed at in international legislation
by introducing modifications or reservations in the instruments of ratifi-

cation.
However, 1 am uncertain as to the scope and aim attributed by tlie
Government of Peru to the reservations to the conventions a~~earin~ -
in the Goveriiment Order which you have communicated to me: '
If it is the intention of the Government of Pem that such reservations
are merelv to m:ike a distinction between the varliamentarv ~roced,r.
of r:~tiric~itioifcu~ivc~iti~~i ii,tlieun? I.:,rid,and tltc ~)roce(liircrci~uirctl
for hr~iigi~igtlte lt.gisl;itiuiiinto a~c,>rd,~tir:tlntlit:ct~iiv~.~ii~o~nii ,the
other tiindl 1 stiould for my part have no observations to make.
But if, on the contrary, it is a question of provisos which the Govern-
ment intends to incorporate in the instrument of ratification of the
conventions mentioned so that certain provisions shall not apply iii
Peru or shall apply in a different mauner, in this case 1 woultl respectfully
draw your atteiitioii to the legal impossibility of making reservations in
the ratification of international labour conventions.
The principle which 1 have just mentioned is based upon the nature of
international labour conventions, which differ substantially from tradi-
tional diplomatic treaties where ratifications with reservations are
legally possible because they are drafted entirely by the representatives
of the States, while the conventions to which 1have referred are discussed
and adopted bv a Conference consistin~..f em~lo.ers> aiid workers'
reprïseiiiativcs.iii ntlilitiuii tu tlrc gu\.~rnmciit rc.preseiit:~ti\es 2nd :I
\.ilteofrua-thircls of tlic niciiil>ersiiffiicfur;iduptiuii. 'ltiiscirciimstansc
rnnkes itinii>t>ssil)fi:rSt;itci to nilke re~crv;itioiij.\vliictiiioiiltl oiil\, bz
valid if the? were approved by al1the parties concérnedin the prepjra-
tion of the corivention in question.254 WRITTES STATE\IEST OF THE 1. L.O.-APPESDICES

In \.ic\\.of tlie cliarnct~r srri ge>rerirof tlic iiitcrrintional Inboiir con-
\,entions, the Coiistitiitiori of tlii:Org:iiii7.:tii<,icioiisi<them as geiirrnl
con\vntioiis to IICnclht-rrrltu by tlic St;itcs \It:iiihcrs uf tlie Orl;:iiiiz;i~it,ii.
:\ccor~i O arnr 5 of \ri 1 (rtl -11.5of tlie 'Trent? of
\'t:rs:iiIltstticgovc:riinientsniercl\, ii~iciert~~k c ..ul,ii~ittlic CuiivGiitions
:tc\olltt:dllv tlic ~~<j~if<?r<1i~I,l.ic,.?~Y,I~II~!I.Idi.-l,it:.illltt,r~tv!vI~I~I~I
oneyear (or a maximum of 18months)~eckoiiedfrom the closing'meeting
of the Conference. The States may approve them or reject them, but if
they approve them they are bound to apply thein in full without any
reservations or modifications of the conventions iti the instrument of
ratification.
The doctrine which 1 have mentioned is that also held by the Secre-
tariat of the Leaye of Xations, which, as you kriow,isresponsible under
paragraph 7 of Article 19 of the Constitution (Article 4oj of theTreaty
of Versailles) for registering ratifications of internationallabour conven-
tions; and the said Secretariat has not accepted in previous years aiiy
ratifications of conventions by countries such as Cuba and Colombin
which have introduced reservations in the ratification. In the case of

You will appreciate that, in giving you tlie results of the experieiice of
this Officeas regards the international labour conventions, 1am genuinely
desirous that the ratifications of your country should be duly made and ,
that the Republic may be among the countries which have ratified
conveiitions.
1venture to suggest that, in order tliat your country may not encounter
tlie difficultiesarising out of ratificatioris with reservations, the Govern-
ment of Peru should at the moment only ratily those conventions for
nhich no reservations would be required.
According to the information at present available in the Office, it
appears tliat the legislation of Peru is in confoimity with the following
seven coiiventioiis at least :

(1) Convention 4-Night Work of \\'amen, or
41-Night \Vork of \\'amen (Revised) ;
(2) 45-Underground work of IVomen ;
(3) 6-Night \Vork of Young Persons in Industry ;
(4) ,, 7-hlinimum Age for Employment at Sea ;
(5) >, II-Right of .4ssociatioii iii Agriculture ;
(6) ,, 14-\Ireekly Rest in Industry ;
(7) ,, ~~Equality of Treatment.

:\s rcgnrds tlie coriveiitiuiis coiiccriiing social insurdiict, fiir\i,liich the
iIill suhniittc(l to Corigii.uIII S\,vi.riib~.r,1935.:iplwitrç ro iiic nilequate
for ratiric;iiioii, 1 tjke t1.c Iilicity ciliii;iktli,fi,llc>\iin~o:bservïtions:
Convention 3-Maternity Protection. Skie reservatioii as to medical
atteiidance is unnecessary if the woinen covered by the Convention
receive such attendance under the Social lnsurance Act.

Convention 24-Sickness Insurance (Industry, Commerceand Domestic
\\'ork). WRITTES STATEAIEST OF THE 1. L. O.-APPESDICES
256
the reservations which the Government Iiaù proposed when submitting
28 of the said conventions for ratification by the Constituent Congress.
1 have pleasure in enclosing a copy of the note which 1 have sent in
the matter to the Secretaries of Congress.
1 regret that OurLegislative Body did not succeed in reaching a deci-
sion on the conventions submitted before suspending its meetings.
1 have, etc.
(Signed) ALBERTO ULLOA.

The ~zoted,ated5 Jzcne,1936,sent by theAfinister for External Relations
of Peru to the S~cretariesof the Perutiian Congress,mention& in the abone
letter,isas follows :
[Translation from the Spanish]

"To the Secretaries of the Constituent Congress.
1 have pleasure in sending you a copy of a note from the Director of
Labour which 1 have just received in this office, giving the reasons for
withdrawing the reservations proposed in rcspect of certain of the 28
conventions adooted bv the Intemational Labour Conference whicli are
awaiting legislatjve rathication.
As the said Conference is at present Sitting in Geneva and as Peru
am, ,s. to the detriment of its ~restiee.-.s one of the rare countries
\r.IiisliIi:~\.ciiot r:ititie<ltlieic L.onvL, t.ikc the liherty of requestiiig
tlir Cuiijirt:ss. tlirr,iigli yoiir intenne~li:~rytlite.irlit~jt npproval of
tliesc 23 co~i\.c~)tionwhicli iii\.<il\.cno subst.înti:~l ino~lific;ltiourf
current legislation on conditions of employment."

*

is as followsr:m the Directorof Labour, mentioned in the preceditignote,

[Translation from the Spanish]
"To the Secretary-General of the Ministry of External Relations.

In view of the approval by the Constituent Congress of the Bill
anthorizing the Execntive to carry out compulsory social insurance and
of the preparation by my Department of provisions for establishing
public employment agencies with the assistance of advisory committees
of employers and workers, it is unneceszary to make reservations when
approving the draft conventions of the International Labour Conference,
mentioned in the Govemment Decision of 6 May last, issued by your
Ministry.
On the other Iiand, the said reservations should, in view of their
character, be regarded as indications of an interna1 character, towards
the modification or supplementing of the relevant text of the national
legislation in order to ensure due compliance with the conventions,
rvithout being incorporated in the actual decision of approval.
In view of the foregoing, this Directorate suggests to your Department
that the reservations should be suppressed, not merely because they are WRITTES STATE.\IEST OF THE 1. L. 0.-APPENDICES , 257

unnecessary (as explained above) but also because they are in reality
equivalent to a private condition or requirement.

[Seal of the Directorate (Signed) REBAGLIATI,
of Labour and Social
Welfare.] DireSocialf\Velfare."d

*
* *
As regards the various conventions ratified by Peru, no reservations
have been made.
-

AppendixIV

AlEAIORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE
IXTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE TO THE COMMITTEE OF

EXPERTS FOR THE PROGRESSIVE CODIFICATION OF INTER-
NATIONAL LAW AND EXTRACT FROM THE REPORT

SUBhfITTED BY THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL OF THE
LEAGUE OF NATIONS, 1927

A
TEXT OF THE hlEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE TO THE COMhlITTEE OF EXPERTS FOR
THE PROGRESSIVE CODIFICATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW'

B

EXTRACT FROM THE REPORT BY THE COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS FOR THE
PROC.HFSSL!'E C~ULI'IC\TLOS OF IS'~I:KS.Y~IOS.\II..\\COSCEI<SIS~. THE

r\T>~IISSIIILLI01' I<liS.il'KYATIOSS IOGS11<:\1. COSVESTIOSS, SUU-
MITTED TO THE COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
ON JUNE 15th, 1927'

EXTRACT FROM THE RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
LEACUE OF NATIONS ON JUNE 17th. 1927

The Council ;
Takes note of the report and directs it to be circulated to the Mem-
bers of the League ;....

--
' Not reproducedsec Leagueof Sations Document C.ZIZ.I~Z~.V; reproduced
in LeagrrO/"Jalimr,Occial Journal, VIIItYear,1927. pp. 882-884.
* Sot reproduced s.eLeague of Nations DocumentC.211.1927.V; reproduced
in Leagtreofi\'afions, Otficial Journal, VYear, 1927, pp. 880-882.
Leogtrof iVafionrOfjiciol Joi'rnal, VIIIth Year, 19~7, p. 800.258 WRITTES STATE.\IEST OF THE 1.L. O.-.4PPESDICES

Appendix V

EXTRACT FROM THE REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE
GOVERNING BODY OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR

OFFICE, AT ITS ~OTH SESSION (MADRID-OCTOBER 1932)
BY ITS STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE AND APPROVED
BY THE GOVERXING BODY

AND
DOCUhfENT SUBhIITTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR

OFI'ICE TO THE COhf31ITTEE

1. EXTRACT FROM THE REPORT OF THE STANDING ORDERS COhlMITTEE '
....(3) Institution ofa Procedure for proposing Amendments to
Conventions

2. DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY THE IKTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE TO
THE STANDING ORDERS COMhllTTEli '
Institution of a Procedzrvefor $roposing Amendments to Conventions

At its fifty-sixth session the Governing Body decided to request its
Standing Orders Committec to consider the possibility of instituting a
procedure for proposing amendments to conventions. This decision was

taken in accordance with a suggestion made in a note submitted by the
Officewhich stated that the difficulties which had then arisen in con-
nexion with the ratification of the Convention concerning the protection
against accidents of workers employed in loading or unloading ships had
show once again the desirability of instituting a procedure whereby the
difficulties of application to which the provisions of conventions occas-
ionally give rise could be overcome. In the same note the Governing
Body was reminded that hf.de Michelis had suggested at its previous
session a reconsideration of tlie proposa1 which he made in 1923 that
Part XII1 be amended so as to authorize hfembers whose legislation,
while not in exact confomity with the requirements of a convention, is
almost identical therewith, to deposit a conditional ratification with the
Secretary-Genenl, the Conference at its session nest follorving being
caiied upon todecide, on receipt of a report from a committeeappointed
to examine the matter, whether such a conditional ratification can be
accepted as satisfactory. The Governing Bodywas also informed at the
same time that the OfficeIiad received from 111.A. D. hIcXair, Reader
in Public International Law in the University of Cambridge and a
member ofthe Committee on Article 408, a memorandum suggesting the

Not reproducedsechliiiutof the 60th session of the Governingof the
Internationalbour Office. Madrid, Oct1932. pp175-r76.
a InternationLabour Office DocumenC.R.8.1932.institution of a ~rocedure which would enable alembers of the Organiza-
tion to make reiervations on pointsof cletail when ratifying convèntions.

Dr. McNair's suggestion is summarized in the-tw,..oncluding parzl-
graphs of his memoFandum as follows :
"7. To put my suggestion into concrete form, it is this-that
every convention, and, upoii its periodical revision, every revised
convention, shall contain a clause running somewhat as follo\vs :

'In order to obviate difficulties in the way of ratification arising
from points of minor discrepancy between the text ofthis coiiveiitioii
and the test of national la\vsO; decrees in existence or to be passed
to give effect to this convention each Member may submit to the
Keservations Committee of the Conference the text of any reserva-
tion wliich it may desire to make. The Keservations Committee
sliall take such proposed rescrvations into consideratiori, an(l,if,
acting by a majority of not less thnn two-thirds, they are of opinion
that tlic reservütion is reasonable Iiaving regard to the legal system

and otlier circumstances prevailing in the country of the Member
proposing it and can be permitted without endangering the uniform-
ity of the application of this coiivention, they shall notify tlieir
assent to the Member. Thereupon a ratification to which such
reservation is attached shall become effective unless and until it
shall be disallowed by the General Conference of the Organiz t' a ion
at tlie session next ensuing.'

S. Further, it would be necessary forthe Conference to constitute
a Reservations Committee on some sucb basis as the following :
'The Reservations Committee sliall be a standing committee of
the Coiiference, consisting of six members, of whom four shnll be
permarieiit members (two being goveriiment delegates, one other
being a delegate representing employers, and one other beiiig a
delegate representing workers) and two shall be non permanent aiid

appointed ad hoc by the Governing Body and having special tech-
nical knowledge with reference to eacli convention.' "
It will be remembered that the same problem was discussecl from
another angle in the years 1922-1924when the Conference discussed the
possibility of the institution of a procedure for the amendmeiit of
conventions.
The Officehas riow made a study of both the proposals referred to the
Standing Orders Committee in the light of the discussions at the Confer-

ence during these years, and has reachecl tlie conclusions set forth below.

The Office would prefer a procediire permitting the amendment of
conventions to a procedure pqrmitting ratification with reservations. It
acknowledges that in many respects the distinction between the two is
forma1 rather than substantial and that the effective result is tlie same
if some States are allowed to accept a corivention subject tothe exclusion
of a particular provision as if the convention is amended to exempt them
from any obligation to comply with that provision, but it believes that
despite this general similarity of result a procedure of amendment would260 WRITTES STATEIIEST OF THE 1. L. O.-APPESDICES

have certain advantages over a procedure pemitting reservations. There
may be cnses in which a State desires, as a condition of its ratification,
to have some provision of a convention made more or less precise, a
result which could not alwavs be secureclto its satisfaction bv ~emi,tAne ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
it to make a reservation stiting its views ofthe effect of the provision in
question; while in al1cases it will conduce to claritv if the conditions on
which Members are permitted to accept conventiois are inserted in the
texts of the conventions and do not take the form of reservations the
exact effect of which on the obligations of other Members towards the
Member inaking the reservations may be open to question. For these
reasons the Officedoes not feel in a position to recommend the adoption
of either Al.de Michelis'proposal or the suggestion of Dr. McNair.
Examination of the alternative of a procedure permitting the amend-
ment of conventions at once confronts one with a serious dilemma-a
dilemma which, be it noted. uresents itself in much the same form if

one examines in detail the possibility of introducing a procedure permit-
ting reservations. It would be possible to include in future conventions
an -article providing for the amendment, by some procedure defined
therein, of certain of their provisions restrictively enumerated. Such an
article would almost certainly fail to achieve the desired result, for it
will often be impossible to foresee when conventions are drafted which
provisions may require amendments. Alternatively, there could be
included an articlepermitting the amendment by some stated procedure
of any provision of the convention in which it appears. The effect of such
an article would largely depend on the procedure for which it provided.
If the conditions to be satisfied for the adoption of an amendment were
exacting, the practical utility of such an article would be small. If these
conditions were not particularly exacting-if, for instance, the absence
of any objection from any or a given number of the Members of the
Or~anization or from re~resentatives of the emolovers' and workers'

gr&ps were taken as equ:valent to approval of a Foposed amendment-
there would be some danger of the content of conventions being whittled
away by successive amendments.
On these grounds the Officeconsiders that the Standing Orders Com-
mittee would be well advised to postpone recommending the adoption
of any general procedure of amendment intended for application to al1
conventions. \Vhen the desirability of instituting a procedure of amend-
ment was referred to it for consideration the procedure of revision had
not been put to the test of experiment. Now that the Dockerj' Conven-
tion has been revised and that there is every reason to look upon its
revision as successful and as likely to facilitate ratification the problem
would appear to be of leçs urgency, and it may be desirable to await
furtlier experience of the procedure of revision hefore making any
attempt to develop a procedure of amendment. The desirability of insti-
tuting a procedure of amendment can always be raised in any particular
cases in which the subiect-matter of a orooosed corivention makes the
. . ~ ~ ~~~ ~
iiicliisiuiIII iti~lsoinr pri>visioiifor :iriiendrnent spcci.illy <Izsir:iI>I i~(l
:~ttlit:unit: tiiiitsiigg?,t, .itccliiiiliic of ;iiiieii~linçiit;ipprupri:tu tlt:ir
~t~hi~ct-11111r~ If.1I.c Staiiili"z Or<lcisCi~iiiriiitti:~li;irrj tliis ~-cn.~~-
immediate action on its part will be necessary.

b AppendixVI

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR
OFFICE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED
NATIONS CONCERNING THE REGISTRATION OF

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS

The following communications from the International Labour Office
to the Secretary-General of the United' Nations illustrate the form in
which such communications specify that ratifications received are not
subject to reservations.

LETTER FROM THE LEGAL ADVISER OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR
OFFICE TO THE SECRETARY-GENER AFL THE UNITED NATIONS DATED

CONVENTION 1,35

Monsieur le Secrétairegénéral,
Conformémentaux dispositions de l'articleoz de la Charte desNations
Unies, des paragraphes z de l'article 4, ztde l'article 5 du Règlement
destiné à mettre en application l'articl102 de la Charte des Nations
Unies, de l'articleo de la Constitution de l'organisation internationale
du Travail et des paragraphes I et z du mémorandum d'accord relatif
à la procédure à suivre pour le dépôtet l'enregistremenà l'organisa-
tion des Nations Unies des conventions internationales du travail et de
certains autres instruments adoptés par la Conférenceinternationale
du Travail, j'ai l'honneur de vous adresser ci-joints, aux fins de dépôt
et d'enregistrement,l'un des deux exemplairesoriginaux du texte officiel
de la Convention sur la conservation des droità pension des migrants,
1935.qui fut adoptéepar la Conférenceinternationale du Travail au cours

de sa Igmesession (GenAve,juin 1935). telle qu'elle a étémodifiéepar la
Convention portant revision des articles finals, 1946, ainsi que trois
copies certifiées conformesde ladite convention.
Cette convention est entrée en vigueur conformément à la procédure
définieen son articl24 qui est rédigé commesuit :
<I. La présente convention ne liera que les Membres de 1'Orga-
nisation internationale du Travail dont la ratification aura été
enregistrée par le Directeur général.
-
2.Elle entrera en vigueur douze moi? après que les ratifications
de deux Membres auront étéenregistrées par le Directeur général.
3. Par la suite, cette convention entrera en vigueur pour chaque
Membre douze mois après la date où sa ratification aura étéenre-
gistréeii

Conformément à ces dispositions, ]'ai l'honneur de vous informer que
les ratifications requises avant été enregistrées, la Convention sur la
conservation desdr6itsàpeision des niigrants, 1935,est entréeen vigueur
leIO août 1938,soit douze mois aprèsla date àlaquelle a étéenregistrée
par le Secrétaire généralde la Société desNations la seconde ratification262 WRITTES ST.KTE.\IEST OF THE 1. L. O.-APPENDICES

de la convention, celle de la Hongrie, la première ratification, celle de
l'Espagne, ayant été enregistrée par le Secrétaire général à la date du
8 juillet 1937.
Veuillez trouver ci-iointe une déclaration certifiéeindiouant les États
ayaiit coniiiiiiiiirlIt.ir;~tificitionfnrnicllcilc 1coii\,t:iitiunen quc.stion.
niiisi<III.le, dates a11xt111~llseîs comm~~nicat~ono ~nt et6 eiir~:ristrizs.
Cesindications com~rennent lesinformations reauises Darle oaramanhe z
de l'articlej du ~èilement destiné à mettre en'apPli~ation'l'ar~cl~ 102
de la Charte des Nations Unies. Les ratifications de ladite convention ne
comportent aucune réserve.
Dans la liste des Membres ayant ratifiécette convention quiest conte-
nue dans la déclaration certifiée ci-jointe, le nom des Membres quisont
parties à la Convention portant revision des articles finals, 1946, entrée
en vigueur le 28 mai 1947, est précédé d'un astérisque.
Conformément aus dispositions de la Convention portant revision
des articles finals. 1-.6,.toute ratification ultérieure de la Convention
sur la conservation des droits à pension des migrants, 1935, vous sera
notifiée dès sa réception par le Bureau international du Travail.
\'euillez agréer, etc.

Pour le Directeur général :
(Signé) C. W. JENKS,
Conseiller juridique.

*

The certified statement attncltetlto this lette7 rends as follows ;

"Déclarationcertifiée

Il est certifié par la présente déclaration que la Convention sur la
conservation des droits à pension des migrants, 1935. qui a été adoptée
par la Conférenceinternationale di1 Travail le 22 juin 1935, au cours
de sa 1gm0session, et qui est entrée en yigueur le IO août 1938, a fait
l'objet, à ce jour, des ratifications des Etats dont la liste suit, et que
ces ratifications ont étéenregistrées aux dates indiquées ci-dessous':
Pays Date d'enregistrement
de la ratificatiot~

Espagne 8. 7. 1937
Hongrie IO. S. 1937
* Pays-Bas 6. IO. 1938
* Pologne 21. 3. 1938
Yougosla\~ie 4. 1. 1946
A Genève, le IO août, 1949.

Pour le Directeur général :
(Signé) C. W. JENKS,
Conseiller juridique."

' Le nom des Membres qui sont parties à la Convention portant revision des
articlesfinalsig.+Gest prkcçdéd'unasterisque.LETTER FROM THE LEGAL ADVISER OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR
OFFICE IO THE SECRETARY-GENFRAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS DATED
27 JUNE, 1950, COMMUNICATING FOR REGISTRATION A CERTIFIED STATE-
MENT REIATING TO A RATIFICATION SUBSEQUEPIT TO THE COMING INTO
FORCE OF THE MAINTENANCE OF MIGRANTS' PENSION RIGHTS

CONVENTION, 1935

Monsieur le Secrétaire général,
Comme suite à ma lettre du IO août 1949 (réf.D. 6oo/zooo/48), par
laquelle je vous adressais, aux fins de dépôtet d'enregistrement, le texte
de la Convention sur la conservation des droits à pension des migrants,
1935, telle qu'elle a étémodifiéepar la Convention portant revision des
articles finals, 1946, j'ai l'honneur de vous communiquer, égalementaux

fins d'enregistrement. la déclaration certifiée ci-jointe relative à la
ratification de ladite convention par la Tchécoslovaquie.
Cette ratification ne comporte aucune réserve.
Veuillez agréer, etc.
Pour le Directeur général :

(Signé) C. \V. JENI<S,
Conseiller juridique.

* * *

The certificdstatement attachedto this letter rends as follows:

"Déclarationcertifiée

II est certifié par la présente déclaration que la Convention sur la
conservation des droits à pension des migrants, 1935, adoptée par la
Conférenceinternationale du Travail le zz juin 1935 au cours de sa
1gn1~session, entrée en vigueur le IO août 1938, et enregistrée par le
Secrétaire généraldes Nations Unies le 15 septembre 1949, a étératifiée
par la suite par la Tchécoslovaquieet que cette ratification a étéenre-
gistrée par le Directeur généraldu Bureau international du Travail le
12 juin 1950.
A Genève, le 17 juin 1950.

Pour le Directeur général :

(Signé) C. \V. JENKS,
Conseiller juridique." Appendix VI1

EXAbIPLES OF RATIFICATIONS OF IXTERNATIONAL LABOUR
CONVENTIOXS SUBJECT TO SUSPENSIVE CONDITIONS,
GEOGRAIJHICAL LIMITATIONS AXD UNDERSTANDINGS

1.-Example of ratification subject to suspensive conditions

CONDITIONAL RATIFICATION BY THE UPIITED KlNGDOhl OF GREAT BRITAIS

AKD SORTHERN IRELAND OF THE CONVENTION CONCERNISG THE SIMPLI-
FICATION OF THE INSPECTION OF EMIGRANTS ON BOARD SHIP, 1926
(CONVESTIOS SO. 21)
Letter/rom His Brita~titic~Majesty'sSecretary O/Statefor Foreigt Affairs
totheSecretary-Geiteralof the Leagtreof Nations, dated14 September, 1927

Sir,

1 am directed by Secretary Sir Austen Chamberlain to inform you, in
accordance with the seventh paragraph of Article 4oj of.the Treaty of
Versailles, thnt llis Ilajesty's Government have formally ratified the
draft Convention concerning the simplification of the inspection of
emigrants on board sliip which was adopted at the eighth sessionof the
General Conference of the International Labour Organization. A copy of
the Order of Council, authorizing the communication of forma1ratifica-
tion of the draft Convention in respect of Great liritain and Northern
Ireland, is enclosed herewith. In accordance with the terms of the Order
of Councilthe ratification will have effectonly when the draft Convention
has been ratified by the States specified in the Order.

2. 1 am further to inform you that His Blajesty's Government have
decided to accept the Recommend$ion subsidiary to the Convention in
question, viz. Kecommendation conceming the protection of emigrant
women and girls on board ship.
3. His hlajesty's Govemment are advised that the proposals contained
in this draft Coiiverition rire in accordance with the esisting law and
practice in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that its ratification
will not involve any legislative or administrative changes.

4. With regard to the Kecommendation, His Majesty's Government
are advised that its terms are substantially in accord with existing
practice.

1 am, etc.
(Signed) G. H. VILLIERS.

The text of theinstrument of ratificationis as follo:s

"At the Council Chamber, Whitehall,
The 27th day of August, 1927.

By the Lords of ~is Majesty's Most Honourable I'rivy Council. WRITTES STATEMEST OF THE I. L. O.-APPESDICES 265
\Irhereas on 20th August, 1926, the Secretary-General of the League
of Nations communicated to His Majesty's Government a certified copy
of a draft Convention concerning the simplification of the inspection of
emigrants on board ship which had been adopted by the International
Labour Conference at Geneva on 5th June, 1926 ;

And whereas it is provided in Article qog of the Treaty of Versailles
that in the case of a draft convention so communicated each Member of
the International Labour Organization shall, if such draft Convention
obtains the consent of the authority or authorities within whose compe-
tence the matter lies, communicate the fonnal ratification thereof to the
Secretary-General of the League of Nat'ions ;

And whereas such draft Convention has in respect of Great Rritain
and Nor~~ern Ireland ohtained the consent oftheauthoritv or authorities
within wliuse cnriipctcncc the rn:irter lies:ind siicli:ictioi;LSISIleCEi~ill)'
trnmnkctl~c~)ro\~isioiiosf rli>:ilcclraftCuiivçiitioicoii~litiori:ill\'effcctive
therein has been taken :

Xo\r, THEREFORE, the Lords of the Council are pleaçed to order, and
it is hereby ordered, that the said draft Convention be confirmed and
approved, provided, however, that such confirmation and approval
shall not take effect until the date by which the Secretary-General of tlie
League of Nations shall have received and registered the forma1ratifica-
tions without reservations of the said draft Convention by France,
Gemany, the Netherlancls, Italy, Norway and Spain.
And it is further ordered that formal communication thereof be made
to the Secrctary-General of tlie I.eague of Nations.

The ratification in question was registered by the Secretary-General
of the League of Xations on 16 September, 1927.

The above letter and instrument of ratification were communicated
to the &lembers of the International Labour Organization in the
O@cial Bullet i.n

As the suspensive condition lias not been fulfilled, the ratification has
not taken effect.

' OficinlBnlletin of theInternational LabouOrguniration. Vol. XII, 15Sovem-
ber.1927. Xo. 4, p.171.11.-Examples of ratifications subject to geographical limitations

1. FORXAL RATIFICATIOS BY INDIA OF THE CONVETTIOSS
CONCERNIA-G \YORKMEN'S CO~IPENSATIOX FOR OCCUPATIOSAL DISEASES.

Letter /rom the Secretary of Stute for India to theSecretary-General
of the Leagz~e O/ Nations, dated 28 Seplember, 1927

Sir,

1 have the honour to infonn you that, in consultationwith the Govern-
ment of India, 1 have recently had under consideration the question of
the ratification by India of the draft Convention concerning workmen's
compensation for occupatioiial diseases. adopted at the International
Labour Conference held at Geneva in 1925. In so far as British India is
concerned no difficulty arises 'as the legislation necessaq to make effec-
tive the provisions of the draft Convention lias recently been passed by

the Indian Legislature, but for the reasons esplained below ratification
would not be possible if the obli ations arising out of the Convention
which \vould be assumed by the l!overnment of India estended also to
the Indian States.

z. These States number several hundreds and the great majority of
them are, from the industrial point of view, undeveloped. They Vary
greatly in size and population, and the exactrelations between thevarious
States and the Paramount Power are determined by a series of engage-
ments and by long-establislied political practice. Shese relations are by

no means identical, but, broadly speaking, they have this in common,
that those branches of interna1 administration which mieht be affected
hy ~ICCI;~U ?I,clied :II1~1trri1:1tIo11I~~i1~,~ir r~iif~~rt.t~:cs f1.cconc,-rii
oi IIIC Kt11,erjof tl~i itntes :ilid nrc nut ;,introll~~d I>v tlii.I'nrnmuuiit
I1u\i.er'Ili,:I.cniil:~tiirr.uf I3r1tisin di:^ n~or~u\.i>rc. :mnot le~i~l;~trf:or
the States nor Ln any matter relating to the affairi of a Statgform the
subject of a question or motion in the lndian Legislature.

3. That being the position, it is clear that the Govemment of India
cannot undertake the obligation to make effective in the Indian States

the provisions of a draft convention, and it follows, therefore, that a
draft convention can be ratified by india only in the sense that the
obligations are accepted as applying to British India.

4. No other conclusion is possible. If the consequences of ratification
were to apply to the whole of lndin it would be necwsary under the
vrocedure laid down in Article a05 of the Treatv of Versailles that in the
Ease of each of the Indian Stat& ;Il draft convrntions should be brought
before "the authoritv within whose comvetence the matter lies for the
enactment o~~ ~eislat~on or other action". Ând if this cumbrous orocedure

could be carried out the failure of a single tat tte agree to dake effëc-
tive the provisions of the convention would presumably prevent ratifica-
tion. Furt~ ~~~even if these difficulties c~u~ ~~~ ~vercome. it would he
iiecessary in order to comply with the provisions of ~rti&e 408 ofthe WRITTEX STATEYEX'I. OF THE 1.L. O.-.4PPENDICES 267

Treaty to obtain from each of these several hundred States an annual
report on the measures taken to give effect to the provisions of the
convention.
This bnef description of the practical difficulties which in my view
are insurmountable, will make it clear that if obligations arising out of
a draft convention are not limited to British India the onlv course onen
to the Govemment of India would be to refuse consistektly to raiify
al1 draft conventions-a course which they would be most reluctant to
adopt,as they have in the past, in their progressive programme of social
legislation, derived so much inspiration from the work of the Inter-
national Labour Organization and have given so .many tangible proofs
of their sympathy with its objects.
But, although unable to assume obligations in regard to the Indian
States, the Government of India will (on the analogy of the ninth para-
graph of Article 405 of the Treaty of Versailles),when a draft convention
has been ratifiedby India, bring it to the notice of those States to which
11.;~>rovisioiiînpl>enr ti>11cr&\.:iiit, ;iiid\vil1:JSObc prcpnrc<l, whcn
nccesinr!.. ri>use tlicir good offices \vil1Oit:;~iitlioritirsof susti St?t?s
ro induce 11.cin 10:l]q~i\'suktr :~spbsiiblc rtlcprovisioiisof tiiccoli\~clitioii
within their territoriei.
5. On the understanding stated in paragrapli 3 above that the obliga-
tions assumed apply to British India only, 1 have now the honour to
communicate the "ratification" of India of the draft Convention con-
cerning workmen's compensation for occupational diseases, and of the
draft Convention con ce min^ equality of treatment for national and
foreign workers as regard< wôrkmën's compensation for accidents,
adopted by the International Labour Conference at its seventh session

(1925).
6. The statement of the position contained in the first four paragraphs
of this letter iS communicated to you only for your information and to
enable you to answer any enquiries that may be addressed to you. 1
would ask you to be good enough, when fonvarding a copy of this
letter to the Director of the Intemational Labour Office,to request that
it may be given the fullest publicity.
1 am, etc.
(Signed) BIRKENHEAD.

The ratification in question \vas registered by the Secretary-General
of the League of Xations on 30 September, 1927.

The above letter was communicated to the Members of the Interna-
tional Labour Organization in the Wcial Bulletin '.

' Oficial Bul4etiof the InternationLabour OrgunizutionV,ol.XII, 15 Novem-
ber, 1927,K0. 4, pp. 172-173.

18268 WRITTES STATEXEST OF THE I. L. O.-APPEXDICES

2. FOR>IAL RATIFICATIOX BY AUSTRALlA OF CERTAIN INTERSATIONIL
LABOUR CONVENTIONS

By letters of II March, 1931, the Secretary-General of the League of
Nations informed the Office that by letter of 3 I'ebruary, 1931, the
Prime Minister and Minister forExternal Affairs of the Commonwealth
uf :\iistr.ili;i 1i:iilcommiiiiii:i~1)~Itiiiiiii;tcc,?r(l:.iic~\vit11:\rti:li~j
of tlic Tre:ity of \'crsnill~.i.III<:f<?niinlr.îtii.cnII!itic i;u\~criiiiit-iltof
rlic iommoii\i.~::iltkiof .\uitralii oi III,: C~ii\~<.iiriuiici>ii<:eriiiirlic.
creation of minimum wage-fixing machinery (1928) and the mGking
of the weiglit on heavy packages transported by vessels (1929).
The letter from the Prime Jfinister and Minister for External Affairs
of the Commonwealth of Australia relating to the Convention concem-
ing the creation of minimum wage-fixing machinery is as follotvs :

"Sir,
In accordance with the terms of Article 405 of the Treaty of Ver-
sailles, 1 have the honour to inform you that the draft Convention
adopted at the eleventh session of the International Labour Con-
ference concerning the question of minimum \\rage-fixingmachinery
has ohtained the consent of the authority within whose competence
the matter lies, and has been ratified by an Order of the Governor-
General in Council, dated ~1st January, 1931, copy of which, as
published in the Commonwealth of Australia Guzetle, is fonvarded
herewith.
Advicc under Article No. 421 of the Treaty of Versaillesconcern-
ing the action taken in respect of the territories of the Common-
wealth of Australia and the mandated territory of Xew Guinea wiil
be furnished in due course to the International Labour Office.
1 have, etc.
(Sigried) JOHN A. BEASLEY,

for Prime Minister and Alinister
for Esternal Affairs."

The instrument of ratification of the Convetition concerning the
creation of minimum wage-fixing machinery is as follows :
"\VHEHEASthe eleventh session of the International Labour
Conference held at Geneva adopted on 16th June, 19~8, a draft
Convention concerning the creation of niinimum wage-fixing

machinery ;
And whereas the Secretarv-General of the Leaeue of Nations has
duly communicated to the'~ovemment of the tommonwealth of
Australia a certified copy of the said draft Convention ;

And whereas bv Article 40; of the Treatv of Versailles it is Dro-
videtl rhnr, in th: caw uf :;;ir;ifcoiii.eiition so cornriiiiriic.î~c~ro
\leriilrc.rs or tlic Iriteriintion~l I.:tl)rrg:iiiiz;itiçn. eacti \leriihcr
stiall,ifsiickidrnfr curivt~iiri~ri hrîins rhc coiiserltof llic autliuriry
or ;iiirlioritics iii~liin ivlioic cumpctciicc ttiz iii;ilter lics. cuiiiriiiiiii-
c.ite tlie lomi:il r:ititicntion tlicrcuf tu the Sécret:iry-Cicnrtiilof tlic
League of Nations ; WRITTES STATEIIEST OF THE 1. L. O.-.4PPESDICES 269

And whereas such draft Convention has, in respect of the Com-
monwealth of Australia, obtained the consent of the authority
within whose competence the matter lies and so far as the siibject-
matter is withiii the legislative competence of the Parliament of
the Commonwealth of Australia such action as is necessary to make
the provisions of the said draft Convention effectivehas been taken :
Now, therefore, 1, Arthur Herbert Tennyson, Baron Somers,
administering the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia,
acting with the advice ofthe Federal Esecutive Council, do hereby
order that the said draft Convention be confinned and approved
and that forma1 communication thereof be made to the Secretary-
General of the League of Nations.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Commonwealth, at
Melbourne, this twenty-first day of Jaiiuary, in the year of Our
Lorà one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one, and in the twenty-
first year of His Alajesty's reign.

By His Excellency's Command,
(Signed) JOHN A. BEASLEY,
for Acting Prime Minister."

The letter concerning, and the instrument of ratification of, the Con-
vention concerning the marking of the weight on heavy packages
transuorted bv vessels are in similar terms.
~oih ratifications were registered by the Secretary-General of the
League of Xations on 9 March, 1931.
The letters and instruments of ratification in question were com-
municated to the Members of the Intemational Labour Organization
in the Oficial Bulleli~r '.
By a letter dated I July, 1933. the Secretary-General of the League of
Nations informed the Officethat the Blinister for External Affairs of the
Commonwealth of Australia had transmitted to him, by letter dated
24 May, 1935. under Article 405 of the Treaty of Versailles and corres-
ponding articles of the Treaties of Peace, the formal ratification by the
Govemment of the Commonwealth of Australia of the Conventions
given below.
The letter from the Alinister for External Affairs to the Secretary-
General of the League of Xations was as follows :

"Sir.
In accordance with Article 405 of the Treaty of Versailles and
the corresponding articles of the otlier treaties, 1 have the lionour
to forward herewith copies of the Orders made by the Governor-
General in Council on ~2nd May, 1935, to the effect that the four
draft Conventions mentioned hereunder, adopted by the Inter-
national Labour Conference, be confirmed and approved in respect
of the Commonwealth of Australia, and that formal communication
thereof be made to you, viz. :

' OficialBulleli?of the InternationaLabour Ofice, Vol. XVI, 31 May, 1g3r.
NO. 1. pp.41-42.270 WRITTEN STATEhIEST OF THE 1. 1.. O.-APPENDICES
Convention fixing the minimum age for admission of children
to employment at sea,
Convention concerning unemployment indemnity iii case of loss
or foundering of the ship,
Convention fixing the minimum age for the admission of young
persons to employment as trimmers or stokers, and
Convention concerning the compulsory medical examination of
children and young persons employed at sea.

The Commonwealth Navigation Act has been amended to
comply with the provisions of the Conventions under notice, and
it is desired that ratification in respect of the Commonwealth of
Australia be duly registered. This Act covers vessels engaged in the
interstate and overseas. trade, but not those engaged in the intra-
state trade, which are controlled by the State navigation acts.
These ratifications do not include the Terntories of Papua and
Norfolk Island, and the mandatecl territories of New Guinea and
Nauru, for the reason that the provisions of the Conventions in
question are inapplicable owing to local conditions.
1 have, etc.
(Signed) G. F. PEAIICE,
hlinister for Extemal Affairs."

The instrument of ratification of the Convention fixing the minimum
age for admission of children to employmeiit at sea is as follows :

"ORDER
By His Excellency the Governor-General
in and over tlie Commonwealth of Australia.

Governor-General.
Whereas at the second session of the International Labour Con-
ference held at Genoa from 15th June to 10th July, 1920, a draft
Convention was adopted fixing tlie minimum age for admission of
children to employment at sea ;

And whereas the Secretary-General of the League of Nations has
duly communicated to the Government of the Commonwealth of
Australia a certified copy of the said draft Convention ;
And whereas by Article 4oj of tlie Treaty of Versailles it is pro-
vided that. in the case of a draft convention so communicated to
members of the authority or autliorities within whose competence
the matter lies, communicate the fonnal ratification thereof to the
Secretary-General of the League of Nations ;

And whereas such draft Convention has, in respect of the Com-
monwealth of Australia, obtained the consent of the authorities
within whose competence the matter lies :
Novx THBREFORE 1,, SIR ISAACALFREDISAACS,the Governor-
General aforesaid, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive
Council, do liereby order that the said draft Convention be confirmed
and approved in respect of the Commonwealth of Australia, and that formal communication thereof be made to the Secretary
Geneial of the Lcague of Nations.

Given under my hand and the seal of the
Commonwealth of Australia this twenty-second
[L.S.] day of May in the year of Our Lord one thou-
sand nine hundred and thirty-five, and in the
twenty-sixth year of His Majesty's reign.

By His Excellency's Command,

(Signed) G. F. PEARCE,
Minister for External Affairs.

GOD SAVE THE KING !"

* * *

The instruments of ratification of the other Conventions are in similar
tems.

The various ratifications were registered by the Secretary-General
of the League of Nations on 28 June, 1935.
The above letter and the instruments of ratification were communi-
cated to the Members of the International Labour Organization in the
Oficial Bulletin '.

3. FORMAL RATIFICATION BY THE UNITED KlNGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN
AND NORTHERN IRELAKD OF THE CONVENTION CONCERNING FREEDOM
OF ASSOCIATION AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE, 1948
(CONVENTION NO. 87)

Letter from the Foreign Ofice to the Director-General of the

International Laboz~rOfice, dated 25 Jnne, 1949

Sir,
1 am directed by Mr. Secretary Bevin to transmit to you the instru-
ment of ratification by His Majesty's Government of Convention
(No. 87) concerning freedom of association and protection of the right
to organize.
It will he noted that the ratification is in respect of Great Britain

and does not extend to Northern Ireland.
As you are aware, it is the practice of His Majesty's Government
to ensure thatthe law is in accord with the provisions of a convention
before it ratifies that convention. In the case of this Convention the
law in Great Britain is regarded as being in accord with the provisions
of the Convention, but the view has been taken that this is not entirely
the case in Northern Ireland. Under the constitutional practice in
the United Kingdom the matters to which this Convention relates
are, in relation to Northem Ireland, matters for the Parliament and
Government of Northern Ireland.

OjficiaBr<lletoirtheInternationalLabi>iir OffiVol. XS, 31 Decernber,
'935 NO. 4.P. 134- Accordingly, His IIajesty's Government Iiave decided that for the
time being they must confine their ratification of this Convention
to Great Britain.
1 am, etc.
(Sigi~ed) F. B. A. RUXDALL.

The iitslrzrmeiitof ratificatiorrin question is as fol:ows

"Whereas a Convention (No. 67) concerning freedom of association
and protection of the right to organize \vas adopted by the Inter-
national Labour Conference at its thirty-first session, held at San
Francisco from the seventeenth day of June to the tenth day of July,
one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight, wliich Convention is,
word for word, as follows:

[The text of the Convention follows.]
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, having considered the Convention aforesaid, hereby
confirm and ratify the same and undertake faithfully to perform and
carry out al1the stipulations therein contained in respect of the United
Kingdom excluding Northern Ireland.

In witncss whereof this instrument of ratification is signed and
sealed by His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
Done at London the twenty-first day of June, one thousand nine
hundred and forty-nine.

(Sigired) ERNESTBEVIN."

The Director-Geiieral of the International Labour Office acknowledged
receipt of thisletter on 27 July, 1949s ,tating that the ratification in
question Iiad been registered by the International Labour Office on
27 June, 1949a ,nd that it would be communicate<l to al1 the hfembers
of the International Labour Organization.

III.-Examples of ratifications subject to understandingswhich have
not been regarded as constituting reservations

1. FORMAL RATIFICATIOX BY THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN
AXD NORTHERN IRELAXD OF THE COS~ESTION COSCEI~XING SEAMEN'S
ARTICLES OF AGREEMEST1 ,926 (CONVI~STION NO. 22)

Extract frcni a lelter /rom the Fpreibii O@celo lhe Sccretary-General
of the League of Natiot&s,dated II JILILC1,929
Sir,

1 am directed by Ifr. Secretary Henderson to inform you, in
accordance with the seventh paragraph of Article 4oj of the Treaty
of Versailles, that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom
have fonnally ratified in respect of Great Britain and Northern Ireland WRITTES STATEJIEST OF THE 1. L. O.-r\PFESDICES 273

the draft Convention concerning seamen's articles of agreement, which
was adopted at the iiinth session of the General Conference of the
International Labour Organization. A copy of the Order of Council
authorizing tlie communication of the formal ratification of the draft
Convention is enclosed lierewith. In ratifying this Convention His
Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom wish to draw attention
to the law and practice existing in Great Britain affecting the issue
of records of seamen's service and statements as to the quality of
their work. Article j of the Convention provides that every seaman
shall be given a document which contains a record of his service in
a ship but contains no statement as to the quality of his work or as
to his wages ; and Article 14provides that the seaman shaii be able
to obtain in addition a separate certificate as to the quality of his
work. British law and practice.enable every seaman who so desires
to obtain each of these documents. They provide in addition that
seamen may, if they so desire, have reports of character endorsed
on their discharge certificate whether the certificates are in the fonn
of sheets relating to single voyages or of books relating to several
voyages. His Majesty's Govemment take the view that British law
affords al1 the protection to seamen that the Convention contemplates
and they ratify the Convention on the understaiiding that the provisions
described above are regarded as satisfying its requirements.
.........................
1 am, etc.
(Siped) 1. A. KIRKPATRICK.

The text of the iitstrument of ratification is us follo:s

"At the Council Chamber, Whitehall,
The 23rd day of May, 1929.

Ry the Lords of His Majesty's most Hononrable Privy Council.
[Vhereas on 30 July, 1926, the Secretary-General of the League
of Nations communicated to His hlajesty's Government a certified
copy of a draft Convention conceming seamen's articles of agreement
which had been adopted by the International Labour Conference at
Geneva on 24th June, 1926 ;
And whereas it is provided in Article 4oj of the Treaty of Versadles
that in the case of a draft convention so communicated each hlember
of the International Labour Organization sliall, if such draft convention
obtains the coiisent of the authority or authorities within whose
competence the mattcr lies, communicate the formal ratification
thereof to tlie Secretary-General of the League of Nations ;..

And whereas such draft Convention has in respect of Great Britain
and Northern Irelnnd obtained the consent of the authority or
authorities witliin whose competence the matter lies and such action
as is nrcessary to make the provisions of the said draft Convention
effective therein has been taken :274 \VRlTTES STATEIIEST OF THE 1. L.O.-APPESDICES

Now tlierefore, the Lords of the Council are pleased to order,and
it is hereby ordered, that the said draft Convention be confirmed
and approved.
And it is further ordered that forma1 communication thcreof be
made to the Secretdry-Geiieral of the League of Nations.

(Signed) AI.P. A. HANKEY."

The ratification in question was registered by the Secretary-General
of the League of Nations on 14 June, 1929.
The above ratification was communicated to the hfemben of thc
International Labour Organization in ,the Oficial Bzilletin '.

Letlerfrom the Secretaryof Stnte for Irtdia to theSecretary-Generalof the
League of Natiorts, daled 27 October,Ig32

Sir,
On the 10th November, 1927."th a letter Xo. E. 8r0. 6176/27, there
was fonvarded to you a copy of a Resolution adopted by the Indian Legis-
lature in regard to the draft Convention conceming seamen's articles
of agreement adopted by the International Labour Office at its ninth
session, and in a letter dated th May, 1931, NO.E. & 0. 27g2/31, there
was communicated to you by direction of my predecessor the text of an
Act of the Indian Legislature No. IX of 1931. amending the Indian
Merchant Shipping Act 1923. This Act was intended to bring Indian
national law into conformity with the draft Convention with a view to
its ratification on behalf ofIndiasa Member ofthe International Labour
Organization.
Conformably with this intention, and in accordance with the provi-
sions of Article 405 of the Treaty of Versailles. 1 have the honour to
communicate to you, on behalf of India, the ratification of the draft
Convention concerning seamen's articles of agreement adopted by the
International Labour Conference at its ninth session. In communicating
the ratification of this Convention, I desire to draw attention to the law
and practice existing in India, affecting the issue of records of seamen's
service, and statements as to the quality of their work. Article 5 of the

Convention provides that every seaman shd be given a document
which contains a record of his service in his ship, but contains no state-
ment as to the quaiity of his work, or as to his wages, and Article 14
provides that a seaman shall be able to obtain in addition a separate
certificateas to the quality of his work. Indian law and practice enable
every seaman who so desires to obtain each of these documents. They
provide in addition that seamen may, if they so desire, have reports of

1929,NO.a2,pp. 73-74.the InternationaLabour OfficeVol. XIV, 15 September. WRITTES STATEAIEST OF THE 1. L. O.-APPESDICES 275
clinrîzter cniloiied on rlieir discli:ir#e cr.rtitic:ites. iilititis iiiitlic

foini cf :tconrinuoiis dijcli:irgt: ~.t.rtiiic.tte,rcl:iIOisci.eiril vo!.;i~es.
'1'1iG~v~riiiiieiituf Iiirlit.,lictlic \.ic\\. rli.it 1iiili.inla\\. .irf[lie,ail
protection to seamen that the Convention contemplates, and the Con-
vention is ratified on the understanding that the provisions described
above are regarded as satisfying its requirements.
1 have, etc.
(Sigfzed) SAMUEL HOARE.

The ratification in question was registered by the Secretary-General

of the League of Nations on 31 October, 1g3z.
,.- The above letter was communicated to the Members of the Interna-
tional Labour Officein the Oficial Bz6lletin'.

3. FORLMAL RATIFICATION BY AUSTRALIA OF THE CONVENTION CONCERNING
HOURS OF WORK ON BOARD SHIP AND MANNING 1,936 (CONVENTIO NO. 57)

Letter /rom the Minister for External Afairs of tlie Commonwealthof
Australia to the Secretary-General of tlze League of Nations, dated
18 August, 1938
Sir,

In accordance with Article 405 of the Treaty of Versailles, 1 have the
honour to inform you that the draft Convention concerning hours of
work on board ship and manning adopted at the twenty-first session
of the International Labour Conference has been formally ratified by
His hfajesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia, and 1
enclose the instrument of ratification.
His Alajesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia in rati-
fying the said draft Convention wish to draw attention to the following
matters :
(1) That effect is given to certain provisions of the Convention by
means of Arbitration Court awards and not by legislation.

(2) Thatthe provisions of the followingarticles of the Convention are
not covered either by legislation or awards of the Commonwealth Court
of Conciliation and Arbitration :

Article IO
"1 ......................

(b) there shaii be no consistent working of overtime."
Tliere is no law or Arbitration Court award specifically forbidding
consistent working of overtime by ratings and deck .engineer officers,
including apprentices and cadets. The awards governing the conditions
of employment of both officers and ratings, however, prescribe heavy
rates for overtime which, in their own interest, employers reduce to a
minimum. Thus, in actuai practice, thereis no consistent working of

overtime.
1 OfjicinlB~tlleliof the InternationalLabour Office,\'O].SVIII. 31 SIarch.

1933. No. 1,p. 37. Article II

"1. No rating under the age of 16 years shall work at night."
There is no law or Arbitration Court award prohibiting night work
on board ship by ratings under the age of 16years. In practice, however,
boys employed on ships registered in Australia areday workers.

Article 17
"If in the course of a voyage as a result of deatli, accident or any
other cause a vesse1ceases to have arailable the number of officen
or ratings required by the preceding articles the master shaU make
np the deficiency at the first reasonable opportunity."
- ~
The ~ommonwealth law with respect to this matter is contained in
Sections 43 and 44 of the Navigation Act 1912-1g35.
Section 43 requires every ship registered in Australia or engaged in
the coasting trade to carry perçons of the number and description speci-
fied in scales set out in Schedules to the Act, or prescribed, or specified
for the ship by the Minister.
Section 44 provides that the owner of such a ship shaU not suffer
her togo to sea, and the master shall not take her to sea, without camying
the crew so required : penalty Srno. The Section also provides that
"if a ship proceeds to sea being short in her crew of not more than one-
fifth of her engine-room staff, or one-fifth of her deck complement, the
master or owner shall not be liable under this section if it isproved that
the breach was not occasioned through any fault of his own."
His Majesty's Government take the view thnt the law andlor practice
in Australia outlined above provides al1 the protection to seamen that
the Convention conteinplates in the three articles referred to and ratifies
the Convention oii the understanding that such law and/or practice is
regarded as specifying (sic) the requirements of the said articles.
As there are no vessels which come within the scope of the Convention
registered in the territories of Papua and Xorfolk Island and the
mandated territories of Xew Guinea and Xauru the Convention niIl
not be applied to these territories.
1 have, etc.
(Sigized) \ 11.HUGHES,

Ilfinister for Esternal Affairs.
*
*

Tireinstrtcmetttofrutificutioizis as follow:
'COJIMOSI~EALT OHF AUSTRALIA,
to !vit
HUSTIXCFIELD,
ADJIISISTII.ATOII,

By His Excelleiicy the Administrator of
the Goveriimeiit of the Commonwealth of
Australia.
IVhereas at the twenty-first session of the International Labour Con-
ference held at Genevn from the sisth day of October, one thousand nine IVRITTEX STATEMEST OF THE 1. L. O.-APPENDICES 277

hundred and thirty-six, to the twenty-fourth day of October, one thous-
and nine tiundred and thirty-six, a draft Convention Number 57 was
adopted on the twenty-fourtti day of October,onethousand nine hundred
and thirty-six, conceming hours of work on board ship andmanning,
which draft Convention is word for word as follows :

[Here followsthetext of thz Conzienfion.]
His hlajesty's Governinent in the Commonwealth of Australia having
considered the said draft Convention hereby confirm and ratify the
same and undertake faithfully to perfom and carry out al1the stipula-
tions therein contained.

Excellency the Administrator by andnt ofwith advice and consent of the
Federal Executive Council and the seal of the .Commonwealth of
Australia is Iiereto affixed.

Given at Canberra this eighteenth day of August in the year of Our
Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-eight and the second year
of His Afajesty's reign.

By his Excellency's command,
(Signed) IV. fil. HUGHES,
Minister for Esternal Affairs."

* *

By letter of 5 October, 1938, the Secretary-General of the League of
Nations replied to the letter of 18 August, 1938, from the Minister for
Externat Affairs of the Commonwealth of Australia.

TlaelelleroftheSecretary-Generalofthe Leagzreof Nations is asfollows:
"Sir,

1 have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of
18 August, 1938, informiug me, in accordance with the provisions of
Article 405 of the Treaty of Versailles, that the Convention coiicerning
hours of work on board ship and manning adopted by the International
Labour Conference at its twenty-first session (Geneva, October 6-24,
the Commonwealth of Australia and enclosing the instrument of ratifi-
cation.

2. As stated in the same communication, the Convention is not applic-
able to the territories ofPapua and Xorfolk Island and the mandated
territories of New Guinea and Sauru.
3. In reply, 1beg to inform you that the above-mentioned ratification
wasregistered with the Secretariat of the League of Nations on Septem-
ber 24, 1938,and 1willnot failto inform the blembers of tlie International
Labour Organization and the Dircctor of the International Labour
Officeof tliis fact.
4. You have been good enougli to inform me at the same time that
His filajesty's Government in tlie Commonwealth of Australia in278 WRITTES STATE~IEST OF THE I. L. O.-APPESDICES

ratifying the said draft Convention wish to draw attention to the
following matters :

[Here follows the text of thelftlO/ 18 August, 1938, of the Millister for
External Aflairs with th?exceptionofthefirst undlast paragraphs.]

j. The terms of your letter have been comrnunicated to the Director
of the International Labour Officewho has drawn my attention to the
fact that if the understanding stated in your letter were to be regarded
as constituting a reservation, the doctrine approved by the Committee
of Experts on the Progressive Codification of International Law, in a

report accepted by the Council on 17 June, 1927, to the effcct tliat the
reservations to international labour conventions are inadmissible, would
be applicable to the present case. It is presumed, however, tliat the
Government of the Common\vealth of.4ustralia, which has communicated
to the Secretariat an instrument of ratification in uiiqualified tems, has
no intention of purporting to ratify subject to a reservation, but is
merely drawing attention to the law and101practice in Australia, which
it understands to be inconfomity with the requirements of the Conven-
tion.
'1 have, etc.

For the Secretary-General :
(Signed) L. A. PODESTA COSTA,
Under Secretary-General."

*
*

The ratification in question was registered by the Secretary-General
of the League of Nations on 24 September, 1938.
The above letters and instrument of ratificatiori were communicated
to the Members of the International Labour Organization in the Oficial
Btrlletin'.

4. FORMAL RATIFICATIOS RY THE USITED STATES OF AMERICA OF THE
COSVESTIOSS CONCERNISG THE AlISIYü11 REQUIREMENT OF PROFES-
SIONAL CAPACITY FOR AIASTERS ASD OFFICERS ON BOARD MERCHANT
SHII'S,1936 (CONVENTION NO. 53); COSCERNING ASNUAL HOLIDAYS WITH
I>AY FOR SEAMEN, 1936 (CONVENTION NO.54) ; CONCERNING THE LIABI-
LITY OF THE SHIPO\I'NI!R IN CASE OF SICKNESS. INlUKY OR DEATII OF
. .
SI1A>IEN 1,936 (CONVENTIO NO. 55) ;CONCEIINING HOURS OF \VORI< ON
BOARD SHIP AND YANNING, 1936 (CONVENTION NO. 57) : FIXING THE
ZIISlZlUM AGE FOR THE AD~IISSI& OF CHILDRES TO E!vI~~o~~~ENT AT SEA
(REVISED 1936) (COSVESTIOS SO.58)

By letters of9 November, 1938, the Secretary-General of the League
of Nations informed the Officethat, by letters of 27 October, 1938, the
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the. United
States of America at Berne had communicated to him the ratific;ition
by the Government ofthe United States of America of the above-named
Conventions.

OficinlBt~lletivrthe InternationLabour Oace, Vol. XXIII, 31 Decernber.
1938.So. 4.pp 137-'39. WRITTEX STATEXEXT OF THE I. L. O.-APPESDICES 279

The letter from the Envoy Extraordinary and Jliiiister Plenipoten-
tiary of the United States at Herne to the Secretary-General of the
League of Nations relatiiig to the ratification of the Convention con-
cerning the minimum requirement of professional capacity for masters .
and officers on board merchant ships is as follows :
"Sir;

Acting under instructions from my Government, 1 have the
honour to transmit herewith, for registration in accordance with
Article 8 of the Convention, the instrument of ratification on the
cerning the minimum requirement of professional capacity for con-
masters and officers on board merchant ships, adopted hy the
International Labour Conference, at its twenty-first session, held
at Geneva October 6-24. 1936.
1 am further directed to advise vou that this draft Convention
was ratified bythe United States of America subject tothe following
understandings, which are made a part of the ratification :

'That the United States Government understands and con-
stmes the words "vessels registered in a territory" appearing in
this Convention to include al1 the vessels of the United States
as defined under the laws of the United States.
That the United States Government understands and con-
strues the words "maritime navigation" a~~earing in this Con-
vention to mean navigation on tEe high si& on~~:
Nothing in this Convention shall be so construed as to prevent
the authorities of the United States from making such
inspection of any vessel referred to in Article V, paragraph 3,
within the jurisdiction of the United States, as may be necessary
to determine that there has been a compliance with the terms of
this Conventioii, or to prevent such authorities from withholding
clearance to any such vessel which they find has not complied
with the provisions of the Convention until such time as any
such deficiency shall be corrected.
tory over wliich the United States exercises jurisdictioii, except
the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippine Islands
and the Panama Canal Zone, with respect to which this Govern-
ment reserves its decision.'

These understandings are deemed not to be reservations which
would require the acceptance of other governments, but to be
merely clarifications of definitions to show that the definitions
accepted by the United States of America are in fact those that
were intended by the Conference. The last understanding is in
accordance with Article 7 of the draft Convention.
Please accept, etc.
(Signed) LELAZD HARRISON,
American ilfinister."280 \\'RITTES STATE31EST OF THE 1.L. O.-APPESDICES

The i?islrzrnie~ttf ratificatimt of tlie Cotwe?rtii sas follows .

"FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT,
President of the United States
of Arnerica,

To al1 to whom these presents shall come. greeting :

Know i'e, that wliereas a draft Conventioii (Xo. 53) with regard
to the establishment by each maritime country of a minimum
requirement of professional capacity in the case of captain, navig-
ating and engineer officersin charge of watclies on board merchant
ships, \vas adopted on the twenty-fourth day of October, nineteen
hundred and thirty-six,. by the General Conference of the Inter-
iiational Labour Organkation at its twenty-first session held at
Geneva, Octoher 6-24, 1936 ;
And whereas, the United States of America being a Xember of
the International Labour Organization, the Secretary-General of
the League of Nations, acting in conformity with a requirement
in the nineteenth Article of the Constitution of the said Organiz-
ation, comrnunicated to the Government of the United States of
America a certified copy of the said draft Coiivcntion, the text of
which in the French and English languages is word for word
as follows :

[Herefollows the text of the Co?tuentimisn the French and
En~lislilnrz,ozinges.]

And u,hereas the Senate of the United States of America by their
Resolution of June 13, 1938 (two-thirds of the Senators present
concurring tlierein), did advise and consent to the ratification of
the said draft Convention (No. 53), subject to the following under- .
standings to be made part of such ratification :
'That the United States Government understands and con-
strues the words "vessels registered in a territory" appearing in
this Convention to includeall the vessels of the United States
as defined under the laws of the United States.
That the United States Government understands and con-
strues thc words "maritime navigation" appearing in this Con-
vention to mean navigation on the high seas only.
Nothing in this Convention shall be so construed as to prevent
the authorities of the United States from making such inspection
of any vesse1 referred to in Article V, paragraph 3, within the
jurisdiction of the United States, as may be necessary to deter-
mine that there has been a compliance with the terms of this
Convention, or to prevent such authorities from withholding
clearance to any such vesse1srhich the). find has not complied
with the provisions of the Convention until such time asany such
deficiency shall be corrected.
That the provisions of this Convention shall apply to al1
territory over which the United States excercises jurisdiction, WRITTES STATEXIEST OF THE 1. L.O.-APPESDICES 261
escept the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippine
Islaiids and the Panama Canal Zone, with respect to which this
Government reserves its decision.'

Xow, thcrcfore, be it known tliat 1, Franklin D. Roosevelt,
I'resident of the United States of America, having seen and consid-
ered the said draft Convention (No. 53) with regard to the estab-
lishment by each maritime couiitry of a minimum requirement of
professional capacity in the case of captain, navigating and cngineer
officers in charge of watches on board merchant ships, do herehy
in pursuance of the aforesaid advice and consent of the Senate
ratify and confirm the same and every article and clause thereof,
subject to the understandings hereinabove recited and made part
of this ratification.
In testimony whereof, 1have caused the seal of the United States
of America to be hereunto affised.

Done at the City of Washington this first day of September in
the year of Our Lord one thousaiid nine hundred and thirty-eight
and of the Independence of the United States of America the one
hundred and sisty-third.

Hy the President :
CORDELL HULL,
Secretary of State."

It will be observed that the ratification by the United States of the
Convention concerning the minimum requirement of professional
capacity for masters and officers on board merchant ships is subject to
four understandings :

(1)The United States Government understands and construes the
words "vessels registered in a territory" appearing in this Convention
to include al1the vessels of the United Statesas defined under the laws
of the Unitcd States.
(2) The United States Government understands and construes the
words "maritime navigation" appearing in this Convention to mean
navigation on the high seas only.
(3) Nothing in this Convention shall be so construed as to prevent
the authorities of the United States from making such inspection of
any vessel referred to in Article V, paragraph 3, within the jurisdiction
of the United States, as may be necessary to determine that there has
been a compliance with the terms of this Convention, or to prevent such
authorities from withholding clearance to any vessel which they fiiid
has not complied with the provisions of this Convention until such time
as anv such deficiencv shall be corrected.
(4) The provisions of this Convention shall apply to aU territory over
which the United States esercises jurisdiction, except the Government282 \VRIlTES STATEMEST OF THE 1.L. O.-APPESDICES

of the Commonwealth of the Philippine Islands and the Panama Canal
Zone, with respect to which this Government reserves its decision.

The letters and instruments of ratification relating to the other con-
ventions in question are identical escept for the following points :

The ratification of the Convention (No. 54) concerning annual holi-
davs with pay for seamen does not contain understandings (1) and (4).
The ratification of the Converition (Xo. jj) concerning the liability
of the shipowner in case of sickness, injury or death of seamen does not
contain iinderstandings (I), (2) and (4).
The ratification of the Convention (No. 57) concerning hours of work
on board ship and manning does not contain understandings (1), (3)
and (4).
The ratification of the Convention (No. 58) fixing the minimum age
for the admission of children to employment at sen (revised) does not
contain understandings (2) and (4).
The various ratifications were registered by the Secretary-General
of the 1-eagueof Nations on 29 October, 1938.
The letters and instruments of ratification in question werecommuni-
cated to the >lembers of the Iiiternational Labour Organization in the
Oficinl Bi~lletin'.

1 OffcialBulletinof theInternationalLabour OfficeVol. XXILI. 31December.
'1938. So. 4.pp. 128-136. 9. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
POLAND

The Government of Poland, availing itself of the provisions of
Article 66 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice and
following the Order made on December 1st by the President of the
Court, submits hcreby its views concerning the General Assembly's
Resolution of November 16th, 1950. The U.N. General Assembly
addressed, by this decision, a series of questions to the International

Court of Justice concerning the reservations to the Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and
requested an advisory opinion. The International Law Commission
was at the same time requested to deal, within the scope of its
work on the codification of the law of treaties, with the question
'of reservations to multilateral conventions.

1. The Cornpetenceof the Coz~rtto give an Advisory Opinion

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide as approved by the General Assembly of the United
Xations at its third session on December 3rd, 1948, provides for
the competence of the International Court of Justice exclusively
in Article IX which is setting forth the following conditions for i:
"Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the inter-
pretation, application or fulfilmeiit of the present Convention,
includingthose relating to the responsibilita State for genocide
orany ofthe other acts enumerated inArticleII, shallhesubmitted
to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the
parties to the dispute."

The wording of the said article leaves no doubt that the Court is
entitled to deal with any question relating to the Conven'tionif the
following conditions exist :
(1)therc miist be a dispute,

(2)the dispute must concern "the interpretation, application or
fulfilment" of the Convention or its Articlc III,
(3) the dispute mnst anse betweeii "the Contracting Parties!',
if they accepted the provisions of this article.

The present case does not contain these qualifications and there-
foreit is the opinion of the Government of Poland that the Inter-
iiational Court of Justice is not compctcnt to deal with the question
thns submitted.
The Goverilment of Poland wishes to emphasizc that, in accord-
ance with the principles of international law, the submission to
any international body of questions arising from agreements, if

192S4 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF POLAND

those agreements do not provide for the competence of these bodies,
constitutes an inadmissible attempt at revising these agreements.
There is also no possibility to interpret Article96 of the Charter
as granting general permission to request the International Court
of Justice to give. advisory opinions on legal questionseven contrary
to the explicit provisions of the international agreement in question.
Indeed, Article 96 of the Charter entitles the General Assembly
and the Security Council to request the opinion of the Court only
in cases if this is not excluded by special stipulations or provisions.
Such an exclusion however does exist wherever an explicit proviso
vests this competeiice ~vithanother body or wherever the wording

of the agreement implies the limited competence of the Court.
For a different practice would mean that special agreements of the
contractins parties would be deprived of their l-gal value, which
cannot be-the case.
This mould also mean that the principle of lex sfiecialiswherever
the latter is not coiitrarv to the Charter-does not precede le%
generalis.It is obvious tha"taaiiysuch conclusion would béin contra-
diction with the generally accepted principles of la\\..
Such a practice is moreover inadmissible also for other reasoiis.
The right to interpret or to seek an interpretation of the text of
an agreement has always been reserved to those States only which
have signed the instrument or have acceded to it. The request for

interpretation of the convention voted npon by a majority of
States which are not parties to it, constitutes therefore a violation
of the undeniable right of its signatories. It is only those States
Parties to the Convention with which this right is vested. The
resolution to request the opinion of the International Court of
Justice was-iii the present case-voted npon by a majority of
representatives of States which did not sign the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. or accede
to it. To the kiiowledge ofthe Polish Government several of thesc
States have not even the intention to accede to this Convention.
Consequently no rights accrue from this Convention as res inter
alios gesta to these States. Thus they possess no title to decide on
the contents of the Convention or on the rights of those States
which have resolved to accede to it with reservations relating to

certain of its articles.
In view of the reasons setforth above, the Government of Polaiid
considers that in accordance with the principles of international
law the question submitted :

(a) being tantamount to an inadmissible attempt to revise the
Conventioii on the Preventioii and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide,
(b) being contrary to the wording of Article IX of the said
Convention. !\'RITTES STATEJIEST OF POLASD 285

(c) having becn submitted mith the participation of States which
are not parties to thc Convention

the International Court of Justice ought to, in accordance mith
the law, refuse to give an advisory opinion for lack of competence.
The lack of qualification essentially conceri!s those mho submitted
the request but above al1the Court itself.
The Gorernmeiit of Poland feelsfully cntitled to take this attitude
for it acceded to the Convention on the Prcvention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide and is a party to it-follo!ving the law
voted upon by thc Polish Parliament on July ~Sth, Igjo, and
published in the Journ:il of Laws of the Polish Republic (Dziennik
UstnrwR. P.) No. 36 Poz. 325 of August zbth, 1950.
Finally, the Polish Government is anxious to tlraw attention to

the danger to which this most essential principle in international
relations $nctn snnt servnnda xvould be esposed shoiild a different
soliition be applied to the problem in question.

II. The Qtiestiois of SzrbstanceconcerititigKeserunlions

Apart from the legal points raised above which are of a decisive
character, the Polish Government is desirous to stress that the
question of reservations to multilateral conventions has been solved
by international law in a manner which leavcs no room for any
doubt.
At its present stage of historical development, international
la\\, permits any signatory to accede to a multilateral convention
with such reservations it may consider consistent with its interests.
This right. results from the principle of the sovereign equality of

States.
In this respect the Polish Government wishes to refer to the
statement made by its representative in the 6th (Legal) Committee
of the fifth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations
of October rzth, 1950 (Press Release PM/19j3).
Thus there were no grounds in substance to siibrnit the whole
question to the International Court of Justice.
Concluding, the Government of Poland considers that the Inter-
national Court of Justice, in applying binding rules of international
la\\, on the basis of the points raised above, cannot but refuse the
request for an advisory opinion, this request being deprived of
fonndation both in form and in substance.

\Yarsam, January 13th, 1951. 10. EXPOSI? ÉCRIT
DU GOUVERNEMENT DE TCHÉCOSLOVAQUIE

LE MINISTRE DE TCHÉCOSLOVAQUIE AUX PAYS-BAS AU GREFFIER
DE LA COUR

La Haye, le zo janvier 1951.

Monsieur le Greffier,
Me référant à vos communications en date du zj novembre
et du rer décembre 1950, numéros 12160 et rzzo8, j'ai l'honneur
de soumettre à la Cour, d'ordre de mon Gouvernement et en confor-

mitéavec le point de vue exprimé par la délégation tchécoslovaque
à1aVmesessionde l'Assembléegénéralede l'organisation des Nations
Unies, l'exposéécritsuivant :
Le Gouvernement tchécoslovaque ayant formulé, lors de la
signature et de la ratification de la Convention pour la prévention
et la répression du crime de génocide, des réservesaux articles IX
et XII de cette convention, maintient son point de vue selon

lequel dans le cas où un Etat a fait valoir lors de la ratification d'un
traité international multilatéralson droit indéniable de faire des
réserves, le traité en question est en vigueur entre celui-ci et les
autres parties contractantes dans le cadre donné par les réserves
formulées. Le droit de formuler des réserves lors de la conclusion
d'un traité est généralement reconnu dans la théorie et dans la
pratique internationale. L'assertion selon laquelle le Secrétaire
général del'organisation des Xations Unies, auprès duquel sont
dél~osésles instruments de ratification ou d'adhésion, ne peut
accepter ces instruments s'ils contiennent des réserves auxquelles
une des parties contractantes a fait une objection, se trouve en

contradiction avec les principes généralement reconnus di1 droit
international, avec les buts et constitue un obstacle au développe-
ment de la coopération internationale. Si pn tel procédédevait
être reconnu, cela signifierait qu'lin seul Etat aurait la faculté
d'exclure un antre Etat de la participationà un traité multilatéral,
mème si toutes les autres parties contractantes avaient manifesté,
soit expressément, soit taciteme-nt, leurassentiment avec les réserves
de l'Ét,at en question. Aucun Etat ne peut se constituer juge d'un
autre Etat souverain. Un tel pouvoir arbitraire serait en contradic-
tion avec le principe de l'égalité souveraine des Etats (article z,
paragraphe 1, de la Charte de l'Org$uisation des Nations Unies).

Il est absolument évident que les htats qui on; signé le traité,
mais ne l'ont pas ratifié, et d'autant moins les Etats qui ne l'ont
mêmepas signé, ne peuvent se prévaloir de droits qui n'appar-
tiennent pas aux États qui ont ratifié le traité. C'est un des buts EXPOSE ÉCKI.I. UE LA TCHÉCOSLOVAQUIE
287
de l'organisation des Nations Unies que de réaliserla coopération
internationale, en résolvant les problèmes internationaux d'ordre
économique, social, intellectuel ou humanitaire (article 1, para-
graphe 3, de la Charte). La conclusion de traités internationaux est
un des moyens pour atteindre ce but. Si un État, qui a formulé

une réserve à certaines dispositions d'un traité, devait êtreprivé
de la participation à ce traité uniquement parce que l'une des
parties contractantes a fait objectionà une telle réserve,ce procédé
serait en contradiction avec les dispositions de l'article 1, para-
graphe 3,de la Charte.
Toutes les raisons exposées ci-dessus confirment clairement le
point de vue du Gouvernement tchécoslovaque selon lequel un
État qui a formuléune réserveau moment de la ratification d'un
traité multilatéral ou au moment de l'adhésion, devient partie au
traité sans égard au fait, si l'une des autres parties contractantes
a fait une objection à cette réserve,le traité étant en vigueur entre

les parties contractantes dans le cadre donné par les réserves for-
mulées.
Veuillez agréer, etc.

(Signé) Dr J. MARTINIG,
Envoyéextraordinaire et
Ministre plénipotentiaire de Tchécoslovaquie. 11. EXPOSÉ ÉCRIT
DU GOUVERNEMENT DES PAYS-BAS

LE nflNISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DES PAYS-BAS AU GREFFIER
DE LA COUR

La Haye, le 19 janvier 1951.
Monsieur le Greffier,

En réponseà votre lettre du reldécembre1950.no 12208, concer-
nant la question des réservesà la Convention pour la prévention
et la répressiondu crime de génocide, j'ail'honneur de vous com-
muniquer, à toutes fins utiles, quelques renseignements au sujet de
l'exclusion de la ratification, ainsi que de l'adhésion,de l'artXcle
de la Convention pour l'adaptation à la guerre maritime des
principes de la Convention de Genève du 22 août 1864, signée le
29 juillet 1899à la Première Conférencede la Paix à la Haye.

Dans la périodedu 29 juillet au 31 décembre1899, l'Allemagne,
les États-Unis d'Amérique, la Grande-Bretagne et l'Irlande, ainsi
que la Turquie, signèrent ladite convention Isous réserve .de
l'articleX II,non pas avaiit que le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas
ne se fût assuré, en tant qu'État dépositaire, de l'approbation des
Etats représentés à la Conférence.Étant donnéque ledit article X
avait étéadopté par la Ileuxième Commission àla majorité d'une
voix seulement, le Gouvernement néerlandais s'adressa, au début

du mois de novembre 1899, aux États afin de les pressentir au sujet
de l'exclusion de l'article X de la ratification.
Au mois de janvier 1900, le Gouvernement impérial de Russie
communiqua qu'il ne verrait paç d'inconvénient à l'exclusion de
l'article susmentionné du texte de la ratification si tous les autres
États partageaient cet avis et qu'aucune modification nouvelle
ne fût introduite dans le textë de la convention revêtude la signa-
ture des Puissances.
Par lettre du 29 janvier 1900, le Gouvernement néerlandais

demanda aux Puissances int4ressées.si elles consentaient à ce que
l'articlX fût exclu de la ratification.
Le Gouvernement russe appela l'attention sur le fait que, malgré
l'exclusion de l'articXe adoptépar toutes les Puissances représen-
téesà la Conférence,cet article figurerait pourtant dans les instru-
ments de ratification. Telle Puissance ratifierait par exemp«sous
réserve »,teiie autre(ravec exclusion ».C'est pourquoi ledit Gou-
vernement propose de faire remettre, à toutes les Puissances, de
nouveaux exemplaires des textes signés,dans lesquels l'article X

serait remplacé par le mot RExclu »,bien que les numéros des
articles fussent maintenus. Après avoir fait une contre-proposition, EXPOSEECRIT DES PAYS-BAS 289

le Gouvernement néerlandais se rallia au point de vue russe et, par
lettre en date duzo avril 1900, il demanda l'avis et le consentement
des États intéressés.Ce consentement obtenu, le Gouvernement
des Pays-Bas transmit alors aux États signataires les textes impri-
mésdes Conventions et Déclarations de la Conférence pour qu'ils
fussent insérésdans les instruments de ratification. Dans ces instru-
ments, déposés à la Haye le 4septembre 1900, le texte de l'article X
de la Convention mentionné plus haut a donc étéremplacé par le
mot e Exclu ».Depuis, ledit article X a étéexclu de tolite ratification
on adhésion ultérieure.
Veilillez agréer, etc.

Pour le Ministre :
Le Secrétaire général,
(Signé) H. N. BOON. 12. EXPOSÉ ÉCRIT DU GOUV.ERXEhlENT DE LA
RÉPUBLIQUE POPULAIRE DE ROUMANIE

TÉLEGRAY.\IE DATE DE BUCAREST LE 20 ]AS\'lER IgjI

Se référantà la lettre no 12209 du ICIdécembre 1950 relative à
l'avis consultatif dans la question des réserves à la Conventioii
pour la préventionet la répressiondu crime degénocide,leGouverne-

ment de la République populaire roumaine a l'hoiineur de porter ce
qui suità la connaissance de la Cour internationale de Justic:
Le Gouvernement de la République populaire roumaine conteste

à la Cour internationale de Justice la qualité de s'occuper des
questions qui lui ont étésoumises par la Résolutiondel'Assemblée
généralede l'organisation des Nations Unies sur Ics réservesformu-
mulécspar certains États à l'occasion de la signature, de l'adhésion
ou de la ratification de la Convention pour la prévention et la
répressiondu crime de génocide.
Par lademande faite à la Cour internationale de Justice de donner
un avis consultatif, on tente, en réalité,non paà éclaircircertains
problèmes de nature juridique, mais à empêcherla mise en appli-
cation de la Convention sur le génocide.

Tenant compte de la nécessitéde proclamer que le génocideest
un crime contre le droit des peuples et d'établir la responsabilité
pour la perpétration dececrime, tant desindividus que desgouverne-
ments qui le commettent, le Gouvernement roumain a adhéré à la
Convention sur le génocide, malgré toutes les limitations et les
insuffisances qu'elle contient en raison de la non-adoption par les
gouvernements impérialistes de certaines propositions de l'Union
soviétique, destinées à faire de la convention un instrument plus
puissant et plus efficace.

A l'occasion de son adhésion,le Gouvernement de la République
populaire roumaiiie a formulé,aux articles9 et12 de la convention,
certaines réserves,qui, d'une part, ont pour but de défendre la
souverainetéde 1'Etat roumain et, d'autre part, expriment l'opinion
du Gouvernement roumain que la convention doit s'étendre égale-
ment aux territoires qui ne se gouvernent pas eux-mêmes,y compris
les territoires sous tutelle.
Le Gouvernement roumain constate toutefois que les Gouverne-
ments des U. S.A., de l'Angleterre et ceux qui les suivent, allant à
l'encontre du désir del'humanitéprogressiste tout entière,recourent,

pour enlever toute efficacità la Convention sur le génocide,àdiffé-
rentes manŒuvres comme celle de contester le droit des États de
faire des réservesà cette convention. EXPOSÉ ÉCRIT DE LA ROUnIANlE zgl

Le droit inconditionné des États de formuler des réserves à
l'occasion de la signature, de l'adhésion oude la ratification d'une
convention multilatérale découledu principe de la souveraineté et
de l'indépendance des États et est consacrépar une longue pratique
dans les relations internationales.
La conséquencejuridique de ce droit inconditionné est que l'État
qui formule des réserves à une convention m,ultilatérale est partie
égale à la convention avec tous les autres Etats participants, la
convention en question étant en vigueur entre l'État réservataire
et tous les autres participants à la convention, à l'exception des
dispositions qui font l'objet des réserves.

Le fait que certains Etats contestent à d'autres le droit de
formuler des réserves à la Coiiventio? sur le génocideconstituerait
tout au plus un différend entre ces Etats, différendqui ne peut en
aucun cas faire l'objet d'un jugement de la Cour internationale de
Justice sans le consentement des parties intéressées.
La Cour internationale de Justice n'a pas qualité pour résoudre
un tel différend par la voie détournéede l'avis consultatif sans que
les États intéressésaient donné leur consentement pour une telle
procédure.
Le Gouvernement de la Képul>liquepopulaire roumaine déclare

que, pour les motifs exposés, il n'est pas d'accord pour que soient
portéesdevant la Cour internationale de Justice les questions conte-
nues dans la demande d'avis consultatif concernant les réserves
formulées à la Convention pour la prévention et la répression du
crime de génocideet il ne reconnaît pas àla Cour la compétence de
se prononcer dans cette question.13. \VRITTEN STATEhIENT OF THE GOVERNRIENT OF
THE UKRAINIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC
-

TELEGRAM DATED FROAI KIEV, JANUARY 20th, 1951

In response to request of International Court of Justice Decem-
ber Icomma 1950 on reservations to Genocide Convention Govern-
ment Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic informs that it considers
any State has right to make reservations to any treaty accordiug
to principle of sovereigntypointSubmitting of reservations has .
consequence that treaty is valid between that State that intro-
duced the reservation and other States signed the treaty except
for that part concerning which reservation was rnade.-A~E~sE~
VOIXAActing Minister ForeignAffairs Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic. Faisant toutes réserves en ce qui concerne la compétence de la
Cour internationale de Justice à l'égard dela République populaire
de Bulgarie virgzcle Gouvernement bulgare se permet d'attirer

l'attention de la Cour sur l'inadmissibilité de la thèse du Secré-
taire général del'O.N. U. virgule selon laquelle il suffirait d'une
seule objection contre une réserve formuléepour rendre impossible
l'acceptation du dépôt d'un document quelconque de ratification
on d'adhésion stopSon acceptation signifierait en pratique une grave
et indésirable entrave à la possibilité de conclure des conventions
internationales multilatéralesstopLa possibilitépour tout pays de
formuler des réserves sur la base de sa souveraineté permet aux
États de se rallier à une cause communevirgule et le fait que dans
le cas présent la plupart des parties dans la Convention contre le
génociden'ont pas formulé des objections contre les réservesfaites
virgule prouve que ces réserves ne sont pas de nature à empêcher
la mise en vigueur de la conventionstop La thèse contraire attribue
trop d'importance à des objections très souvent accidentelles faites
par une partie ou par quelques-unes des parties et trop peu d'impor-
tance à l'acceptation virgule expresse ou tacite virgzcledes réserves
de la part de la majorité stopCette manière de voir permettrait à

une partie d'imposer sa volonté à toutes les autres parties. -
NENOCHE MT'nistre Affaires étrangères. 15.EXPOSÉ ÉCRIT
DU GOUVERXEMEXT DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE SOCIALISTE

SOVIÉTIQUE IIE BIÉLORUSSIE

TÉI.EGR.AZIZ DETÉ DE AllSSK LE 22 JASVIER 1951

Gouvernement de la R. S. S. de Biélorussierépondanà l'0rdon-
nancc de la Cour internationale de Justice en date du premier
décembre 1950 concernant les réserves relativeà la Convention

sur le génocideattire attmtion de la Cour internationale de Justice
sur le fait que chaque Etat souverain a le droit imprescriptible
de formuler une réserve par rapportà n'importe quel traité dont
il veut êtresignataire stop La conséquencedu dépôt d'une réserve
est que le traité est en vigueur entre une partie qui a fait une
réserve et autres participants au traiàél'exception de la partie
du traité pour laquelle une réserveest formulée stop Point de vue
indiqué du Gouvernement de la R. S. S. de Biélorussieavait déjà
étéexposépar ses délégués à la cinquième session de l'Assemblée
généralede l'O. N. U. - hlinistrc des Affaires étrangères de la
K. S. S. de BiélorussieKISELEX'. 16. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE GOVEKNMENT OF
THE KEPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

The Philippine Government \r;ishes to avail itself of the right to
submit a written statement for the purpose of stating its position
on such an important question as that submitted by the General
Assembly Resolution of November 16, 1950, for the advisory
opinion of this Honourable Court.
The Resolution reqiiests this Honourable Court to give an advis-
ory opinion on the question of reservations to the Convention on
the Prevention and L'unishment of the Crime of Genocide.
It may be mentioned in this connexion that the Secretary-
General of the United Xations submitted the general question of
reservations to multilateral conveiitions to the attention of the

General Assembly because he desired guidance concerning the
procedure he shoiild follow regarding ratifications and accessions
to conventions and multilateral agreementsmade conditional upon
reservations. The question then was of urgent importance in view of
the fear that a dispute might arisc as to the date of the entry into
force of the Convention on Genocide. However, \Che11the matter
\!.as being deliberated in the Sixth Cornmittee, a sufficientnumber
of ratificatioiis had been received to permit the entry into force of
the Convention on Genocide, even tlisregarding those ratifications
and accessions with reservations, thus solving the problem of the
entry into force thereof. The only problem that uras in fact before
the Sixth Comrnittee and the Gelieral Assembly was the general
problem of the legal effect of reservations to multilateral conven-
tions.
The Philippine Government feels that the General Assembly
should not takethe initiative in referring specific questionselating
to the application of the Convention on Genocidc to the Inter-
national Court of Justice, and therefore asks this Hoiiourable Court
to decline giving the advisory opinion requested by the tissembly.

1. The qz~estioqzruised relatesdirectlytoa dispute actziullypending
between Az~stualiaand the Phili$pines

As held by this Honourable Court in its Advisory Opinion of
March 30, 1950, on the interpretation of Peace Treaties \rith
Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania (pp. 71-72, Series of rggo), as
requested by the General Assembly, there are certain limits to the
Court's duty to reply to a request for an opinion. Article6j of the
Statute which aiithorizcs the Court to give an advisory opinion is
fiermissive. Saicl article gives the Court the power to examine
whether the circumstances of the case are of such a character as
should lead it to clecline the answer to the request.
In the Easterii Carelia case (Advisory Opinion No. 5), the Perma-
nent Court of International Justice declined to give an advisory WKITTIIN STATEMIINT OF THE PHI1,II'PISES
~9~
opinion because it found that the cluestion put to it \vas directly
related to the main point of a dispute actually pending between
two States, so that answering the question would be substantially

equivalent to deciding the dispute between the parties, and that at
the same time it raised a question of fact which could not be eluci-
dated without hearing both parties.
It may not be amiss to state briefly the facts which relate to the
Australian attitude on the Philippine reservations. On October 20,
19jo. at the 22jth meeting of the Sixth Committee, the Philippine
representative pointed out that a dispute \vasiii the making bet~reen
the Philippines, on the one hand, and the Australian Government,
on the other. In a letter dated September 26, 19.50,addressed to the
Secretary-General by Mr. K. Shann, for the Minister of State for

Esternal Affairs of Australia, the position of the Australian Govern-
ment vis-à-uis the legal effect of the reservations of the Philippines
to the Genocide Convention \vas expressly reserved. OnOctober IO,
1950, at the 219th meeting of the Sixth Cominittee, the Australian
representative made a statemeiit which went as far as to indicate
that parties which made reservations and u7hichare objected to by
any party, could choose only between withdrawing their reser-
vations or not acceding tothe Convention on Genocide.
The disputehas since then materialized in view of the subsequent
letter of November 15, 19j0, of hlr. B. C. Ballard, for the hlinister

of State for External Affairs of Aiistralia, whicli stated, among other
things, that the Australian Government does not regard as valid any
ratification ofthe Convention maintaining reservations such as those
contained in the instrument of ratification dated June 23, 19jo, of
the Republic of the Philippines. For its part,the Philippine Govern-
ment, through its Secretary of Foreign Affairs, in a letter dated
December 15,1950, informed the Secretary-General that it does not
reco-nize such non-acceptance bv the Australian Governmeiit of
thc r~î~.r\.atiniis,cuiit:iiiiiiiirs iiijtriiiiic.r#f r:~tific:itioiiof th,.
Convciition ,11Genoci(le. :i,in ;III\\\..aff<t!ctli~lie v;~li<lir~fsiid

ratification. Notice was further sehed'on the SGretary-~e&ral that
the Philippine Government is prepared to bring the matter as a
contentious case before this Honoiirable Court in accordance with
the procedure laid down in Article IX of the Genocide Convention.
It follo~vsthat this Honourable Court, as the principal judicial
organ of the United Nations, should decline to render an opinion as
requested by the General rlssembly for the reason that questions 1
and II put to it are directly related to the maiii point of a dispute
actually pending between the Philippines and Australia, and that
answering these questions would be substantially equivalent to
deciding the dispute between the parties.

The position of the Philippines on the General Assembly's request
for an advisory opinion has been expressly reserved not only in the
Sixth Committee but also in the plenary session of the General
Assembly. It is therefore felt that the Philippines has a right to WRITTEN STATEXEKT OF THE PHILIPPINES 297

insist that the procedure laid down in Article IX of the Convention
on Genocide should he strictly followed. As this Honourahle Court
held in its Advisory Opinion of March 30,19jo (p. 71, Series of ~gjo),
' an advisory opinion of the Court has no binding force on any State.
It is to the interest of al1 concerned, therefore, that the dispute
between Aiistralia and the Philippines be decided by this Honour-
able Court as a contentious case so that its judgment may be binding
on the parties.

II. The General Assembly has no righl to submit to this Honozfrable
Coz~rtany dispute betweenthe contracting parties relatingto the
interpretation or application of the Conventionon Genocide,mz~cli
lesstofovmzdatetheissues to bedecidedby it

Article IX of the Genocide Convention provides as follows :
"Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the iiiter-
pretation, application or fulfilment of the prcsent Convention,
including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocidc
or any of the other acts enumemted in ArticleIII,liallbesubmitted
to the Iiiternational Court of Justice at the request of nny of the
parties to the dispute."
It follows from the aforesaid provision that the General Assembly
of the United Nations has no personality to submit to this Honour-
able Court a dispute actually pending hetween any of the contract-

ing parties involving the interpretation, application or fulfilment of
the Convention on Genocide.
The functions of the Secretary-Geiieral as depositary of the
Convention on Genocide are purely ministerial in character. If there
is any dispute between the contracting parties as to the interpret-
ation of Articles VII, VI11 and IX of the Conventioii on Genocide,
that could only be submitted to this Honourable Court by an- of
the parties to the dispute.
The dispute, to be within the competence of this Honourable
Court, must be between the contracting parties and that dispute
should be real and not merely theoretical. .4 dispute between the
contracting partics would not be justifiable if it is relatecl merely to
a hypotheticnl situation. In other words, the Court must be
confronted with actual facts and not with contingent events. It is

believed that this consideration avv..cs no less to a reciuest for an
advisory opinion.
It also follows that the issues to be decided by this Honourable
Court must be formulated bv the contractine oarties directlv
involved and not by the ~ene;al Assembly. ~eces<arily, the issues
should not have been formulated in such a general or hypothetical
way as is asked by the General Assembly. The issues should be
directed to the specific reservations that have beeu made to the
Convention and to such objections as are actually made to such
reserrations. In addition to questions 1 and II propounded by the
General Assembly, there are other issoes which should be submitted~9~ \VRITTES STATEJIEST OF THE PHILIPPISES

to the Court, particularly with reference to the nature and form of
the "resenrations" made in the instrument of ratification of the
I'hilippines, as IveIlas tothe "non-acceptance" of those reservations
by Aiistralia. The necessity of particularizing the recluest for an
advisory opinion to the specific reservations so far made to thc
Convention on Genocide and the actual objections thereto, is self-
evident, unless the intention is to ask hypothetical questions \%,hich

~vouldbe beyond the pur\~ie\vof this Honourable Court.
It inay be argued that Australia, as a Member of the General
Assembly who voted in favour of the General Assembly IZesolution
of Xovember 16, ~gjo, has in fact submitted the dispute betjreen
the Philippines and Australia to this Honourable Court. This vielv
\voiild not be tenable, in the first place, becailse it cannot be inferred
that such an individual nct on the part of Australia is separate and ,
distinct from the collecti\,c act of the General Asscinbly.
III the second place, question No. III propounded I>ythe General
r\ssembly has no relation \\.hatsoe\rer to the dispute pcnding between
Australia and the Philippines or to any actual dispute between the

contracting parties to the Convention on Gcnocide. In this coii-
ncxion, it should he noted that this Honourable Court refused to
ans\rer questions III and 1\' propounded by the General Assembly
in its request foran advisory opinion on the interpretation of the
Peace Treaties with Biilgaria, Hungary and Romania, iiiitil after
the contiiigency contemplated come to pass. (International Coiirt
of Justice Refiorts,ïgjo, pp. 6j, 221.)
Inthe third place, while it is true that a disputemay be submitted
to this Honourable Court by any party to the dispute iinder Art-
icleIX of the Genocide Convention, it does not follow that the suh-
mitting party rnayunilaterally, to the exclusion of the other party

or parties directly invol\led in the dispute, formulate the issues to be
decided by it. The General Assembly may not do what Australia, as
a party to the dispute, could not do itself, that is, unilaterally
formulate the issues to be decided by the Court.
In the fourth place, such an advisory opinion as may be rendered
by this Honourable Court at the request of the General Assembly
\vould not finally decide the dispute between tZustralia and the
Philippines because it would not be binding on any State and, on
the other hand, it may prejudge the dispute if not compromise the
lcgal position of the parties. It is felt that States dircctly affectcd '
should be given an opportunity to thrash out their differences

amicably and failing that, thcy should be allowed to agree upon the
issues to be submitted to the jiidgment of the Court.
In vie\\, of the foregoing considerations, the Philippine Govern-
ment asks this Honourable Court to decline to give the advisory
opinion requested by the Assembly.

>fanila, January 17, 1951. (Initialled) [Illegible.j