INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
21 APRIL 2023
APPLICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE
ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
AZERBAIJAN
v.
ARMENIA
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF
THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA
VOLUME II
ANNEXES
VOLUME II
ANNEXES
COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION DOCUMENTS
Annex 1 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,
General Recommendation No. 23: Indigenous Peoples (1997)
Annex 2 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,
Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination: Slovakia, UN Doc. CERD/C/304/
Add.110 (1 May 2001) (excerpt)
Annex 3 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,
Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination: United States of America, UN Doc.
CERD/C/USA/CO/6 (8 May 2008) (excerpt)
Annex 4 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,
Concluding observations on the combined thirteenth to fifteenth
periodic reports of Suriname, UN Doc. CERD/C/SUR/CO/13-
15 (25 September 2015) (excerpt)
Annex 5 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,
Concluding observations on the combined tenth to twelfth
reports of Azerbaijan, UN Doc. CERD/C/AZE/CO/10-12
(22 September 2022) (excerpt)
OTHER UNITED NATIONS DOCUMENTS
Annex 6 Third Report on the Law of Treaties, by Sir Humphrey Waldock,
Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. A/CN.4/167 and Add.1-3 (1964)
(excerpt)
Annex 7 International Law Commission, Draft Articles on the Law of
Treaties with Commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law
Commission 1966 (excerpt)
Annex 8 United Nations Treaty Collection, List of States Parties,
Declarations and Reservations to the International Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
(entered into force 4 January 1969), available at https://treaties.
un.org/doc/Publication/MTDSG/Volume%20I/Chapter%20IV/
IV-2.en.pdf (excerpt)
Annex 9 International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility
of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries,
Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2001 (excerpt)
Annex 10 UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous People, UN Doc. A/RES/61/295 (13 September
2007) (excerpt)
Annex 11 International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Prevention
and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity, Yearbook of the
International Law Commission 2019 (excerpt)
DOCUMENTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA AND
THE REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN
Annex 12 Ad Hoc Report of the Commissioner for Human Rights
(Ombudsman) of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Mine Problem
in the Liberated Areas (June 2021), available at https://www.
ombudsman.az/upload/editor/files/Ad%20Hoc%20Report%20
of%20the%20Ombudsman%20on%20landmine%20problem.
pdf (excerpt)
Annex 13 The Republic of Azerbaijan v. The Republic of Armenia, Notice
of Arbitration under the Convention on the Conservation of
European Wildlife and Natural Habitats of 19 September 1979
(18 January 2023) (confidential)
Annex 14 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Armenia v. Azerbaijan),
Memorial of Armenia (23 January 2023) (excerpt) (confidential)
Annex 15 Azerbaijan’s Allegations Concerning Landmines and Booby
Traps (April 2023)
NON-GOVERNMENTAL AND NON-PROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS DOCUMENTS
Annex 16 “Water Politics Anger Armenia”, Institute for War &
Peace Reporting (22 February 2016), available at
https://iwpr.net/global-voices/water-politics-angers-armenia
Annex 17 “Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: Landmines, a disturbing
reminder of war”, ICRC (31 May 2019), available at
https://www.icrc.org/en/document/nagorno-karabakh-conflictlandmines-
disturbing-reminder-war
Annex 18 “Water Security and the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict”,
Planetary Security Initiative (4 October 2022), available at
https://www.planetarysecurityinitiative.org/news/water-security
-and-nagorno-karabakh-conflict
Annex 19 “Azerbaijan: Blockade of Lachin corridor putting thousands of
lives in peril must be immediately lifted”, Amnesty International
(9 February 2023), available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/
latest/news/2023/02/azerbaijan-blockade-of-lachin-corridorputting-
thousands-of-lives-in-peril-must-be-immediately-lifted/
BOOKS
Annex 20 R. Kolb, “The Compromissory Clause of the Convention” in
The UN Genocide Convention: A Commentary (P. Gaeta ed.,
2009) (excerpt)
Annex 21 E. David, “Treaties and Third States, Art. 34 1969 Vienna
Convention” in The Vienna Convetion on the Law of
Treaties (O. Corten & P. Klein, eds., 2011) (excerpt)
Annex 22 M. Shaw, Rosenne’s Law and Pratice of the International
Court: 1920-2015 (2016) (excerpt)
Annex 23 C. Tomuschat, “Article 36” in The Statute of the
International Court of Justice: A Commentary
(A. Zimmermann & C. Tams, eds., 2019) (excerpt)
NEWS ARTICLES AND SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS
Annex 24 J. Kucera, “For Armenians, they’re not occupied territories –
they’re the homeland”, Eurasianet (6 August 2018), available
at https://eurasianet.org/for-armenians-theyre-not-occupiedterritories-
theyre-the-homeland (excerpt)
Annex 25 “Land Mine Kills Officer as Search Continues for Armenian,
Azerbaijani Missing”, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
(23 November 2020), available at https://www.rferl.org/a/land
-mine-kills-officer-search-for-armenian-azerbaijanimissing
/30965287.html
Annex 26 “Sarsang Reservoir resources reduced, Azerbaijan farmers
will have no irrigation water”, News.am (27 February 2023),
available at https://news.am/eng/news/747156.html
Annex 27 “Sarsang water levels drop at alarming rate amid blockade,
farmers in both Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan to be
affected”, Artsakh News (17 March 2023), available at
https://artsakh.news/en/news/262005
Annex 28 Artak Beglaryan, Facebook (4 April 2023), available at
https://www.facebook.com/Artak.A.Beglaryan/posts/63441916
02285690
OTHER
Annex 29 Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Inhabitants
of frontier regions of Azerbaijan are deliberately deprived
of water (12 December 2015), available at
https://pace.coe.int/en/files/22290 (excerpt)
Annex 30 Office of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, Declaration on
State Independence of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic
(6 January 1992), available at http://www.nkrusa.org/nk_
conflict/declaration_independence.shtml
Annex 31 Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, De Jure Population
(Urban, Rural) by Age and Ethnicity (2002), available at
http://census.stat-nkr.am/nkr/5-1.pdf (excerpt)
Annex 32 Constitution of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic (2006),
available at http://www.nkrusa.org/country_profile/constitution.
shtml (excerpt)
Annex 33 Constitution of the Republic of Artsakh (2017), available at
http://president.nkr.am/media/documents/constitution/Constitu
tion-eng2017.pdf (excerpt)
Annex 1
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,
General Recommendation No. 23: Indigenous Peoples (1997)
Annex 1
Annex 1
Annex 2
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations
of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Slovakia,
UN Doc. CERD/C/304/Add.110 (1 May 2001)
(excerpt)
Annex 2
Annex 3
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations of the
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: United States of America,
UN Doc. CERD/C/USA/CO/6 (8 May 2008)
(excerpt)
CERD/C/USA/CO/6
page 10
The Committee recommends that the State party take all appropriate
measures, including increasing the use of “pattern and practice”
investigations, to combat de facto discrimination in the workplace and
ensure the equal and effective enjoyment by persons belonging to racial,
ethnic and national minorities of their rights under article 5 (e) of the
Convention. The Committee further recommends that the State party take
effective measures, including the enactment of legislation, such as the
proposed Civil Rights Act of 2008,– to ensure the right of workers
belonging to racial, ethnic and national minorities, including
undocumented migrant workers, to obtain effective protection and
remedies in case of violation of their human rights by their employer.
29. The Committee is concerned about reports relating to activities, such as nuclear
testing, toxic and dangerous waste storage, mining or logging, carried out or planned in areas
of spiritual and cultural significance to Native Americans, and about the negative impact that
such activities allegedly have on the enjoyment by the affected indigenous peoples of their
rights under the Convention (arts. 5 (d) (v), 5 (e) (iv) and 5 (e) (vi)).
The Committee recommends that the State party take all appropriate
measures, in consultation with indigenous peoples concerned and their
representatives chosen in accordance with their own procedure, – to
ensure that activities carried out in areas of spiritual and cultural
significance to Native Americans do not have a negative impact on the
enjoyment of their rights under the Convention.
The Committee further recommends that the State party recognize the
right of Native Americans to participate in decisions affecting them, and
consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned
before adopting and implementing any activity in areas of spiritual and
cultural significance to Native Americans. While noting the position of the
State party with regard to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295), the Committee finally recommends
that the declaration be used as a guide to interpret the State party’s
obligations under the Convention relating to indigenous peoples.
30. The Committee notes with concern the reports of adverse effects of economic
activities connected with the exploitation of natural resources in countries outside the United
States by transnational corporations registered in the State party on the right to land, health,
living environment and the way of life of indigenous peoples living in these regions (arts. 2
(1) (d) and 5 (e)).
In light of article 2, paragraph 1 (d), and 5 (e) of the Convention and of its
general recommendation No. 23 (1997) on the rights of indigenous peoples,
the Committee encourages the State party to take appropriate legislative
or administrative measures to prevent acts of transnational corporations
registered in the State party which negatively impact on the enjoyment of
rights of indigenous peoples in territories outside the United States. In
Annex 3
CERD/C/USA/CO/6
page 11
particular, the Committee recommends that the State party explore ways
to hold transnational corporations registered in the United States
accountable. The Committee requests the State party to include in its next
periodic report information on the effects of activities of transnational
corporations registered in the United States on indigenous peoples abroad
and on any measures taken in this regard.
31. The Committee, while noting the efforts undertaken by the State party and civil
society organizations to assist the persons displaced by Hurricane Katrina of 2005, remains
concerned about the disparate impact that this natural disaster continues to have on lowincome
African American residents, many of whom continue to be displaced after more than
two years after the hurricane (art. 5 (e) (iii)).
The Committee recommends that the State party increase its efforts in
order to facilitate the return of persons displaced by Hurricane Katrina to
their homes, if feasible, or to guarantee access to adequate and affordable
housing, where possible in their place of habitual residence. In particular,
the Committee calls upon the State party to ensure that every effort is
made to ensure genuine consultation and participation of persons
displaced by Hurricane Katrina in the design and implementation of all
decisions affecting them.
32. While noting the wide range of measures and policies adopted by the State party to
improve access to health insurance and adequate health-care and services, the Committee is
concerned that a large number of persons belonging to racial, ethnic and national minorities
still remain without health insurance and face numerous obstacles to access to adequate
health care and services (art. 5 (e) (iv)).
The Committee recommends that the State party continue its efforts to
address the persistent health disparities affecting persons belonging to
racial, ethnic and national minorities, in particular by eliminating the
obstacles that currently prevent or limit their access to adequate health
care, such as lack of health insurance, unequal distribution of health-care
resources, persistent racial discrimination in the provision of health care
and poor quality of public health-care services. The Committee requests
the State party to collect statistical data on health disparities affecting
persons belonging to racial, ethnic and national minorities, disaggregated
by age, gender, race, ethnic or national origin, and to include it in its next
periodic report.
33. The Committee regrets that despite the efforts of the State party, wide racial
disparities continue to exist in the field of sexual and reproductive health, particularly with
regard to the high maternal and infant mortality rates among women and children belonging
to racial, ethnic and national minorities, especially African Americans, the high incidence of
unintended pregnancies and greater abortion rates affecting African American women, and
the growing disparities in HIV infection rates for minority women (art. 5 (e) (iv)).
Annex 3
Annex 4
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations
on the combined thirteenth to fifteenth periodic reports of Suriname,
UN Doc. CERD/C/SUR/CO/13-15 (25 September 2015)
(excerpt)
Annex 4
Annex 5
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations
on the combined tenth to twelfth reports of Azerbaijan,
UN Doc. CERD/C/AZE/CO/10-12
(22 September 2022)
(excerpt)
Annex 5
Annex 6
Third Report on the Law of Treaties, by Sir Humphrey Waldock, Special Rapporteur,
UN Doc. A/CN.4/167 and Add.1-3 (1964)
(excerpt)
Annex 6
Annex 7
International Law Commission, Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries,
Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1966
(excerpt)
Annex 7
Annex 7
Annex 7
Annex 7
Annex 8
United Nations Treaty Collection, List of States Parties, Declarations and
Reservations to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination (entered into force 4 January 1969), available at
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/MTDSG/Volume%20I/Chapter%20IV/IV-2.en.pdf
(excerpt)
IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 1
2. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
New York, 7 March 1966
.ENTRY INTO FORCE: 4 January 1969, in accordance with article 19.1
REGISTRATION: 12 March 1969, No. 9464.
STATUS: Signatories: 88. Parties: 182.
TEXT: United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 660, p. 195.
Note: The Convention was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution 2106 (XX)2 of 21
December 1965.
.
Participant3 Signature
Accession(a),
Succession(d),
Ratification
Afghanistan.................................................. 6 Jul 1983 a
Albania.........................................................11 May 1994 a
Algeria ............................ . .9.. .D..e..c..... .1..9..6..6.. ......14 Feb 1972
Andorra........................... . .5.. .A..u..g..... .2..0..0..2.. ......22 Sep 2006
Angola ............................2..4.. .S..e..p..... .2..0..1..3.. ...... 2 Oct 2019
Antigua and Barbuda ...................................25 Oct 1988 d
Argentina ........................1..3.. .J.u..l...... .1..9..6..7.. ...... 2 Oct 1968
Armenia .......................................................23 Jun 1993 a
Australia..........................1..3.. .O..c..t..... .1..9..6..6.. ......30 Sep 1975
Austria ............................2..2.. .J.u..l...... .1..9..6..9.. ...... 9 May 1972
Azerbaijan....................................................16 Aug 1996 a
Bahamas....................................................... 5 Aug 1975 d
Bahrain.........................................................27 Mar 1990 a
Bangladesh...................................................11 Jun 1979 a
Barbados ...................................................... 8 Nov 1972 a
Belarus ............................ . .7.. .M...a..r.... .1..9..6..6.. ...... 8 Apr 1969
Belgium ..........................1..7.. .A..u..g..... .1..9..6..7.. ...... 7 Aug 1975
Belize .............................. . .6.. .S..e..p..... .2..0..0..0.. ......14 Nov 2001
Benin............................... . .2.. .F..e..b..... .1..9..6..7.. ......30 Nov 2001
Bhutan.............................2..6.. .M...a..r.... .1..9..7..3.. ......
Bolivia (Plurinational
State of)..................... . .7.. .J.u..n...... .1..9..6..6.. ......22 Sep 1970
Bosnia and
Herzegovina4..........................................16 Jul 1993 d
Botswana .....................................................20 Feb 1974 a
Brazil .............................. . .7.. .M...a..r.... .1..9..6..6.. ......27 Mar 1968
Bulgaria .......................... . .1.. .J.u..n...... .1..9..6..6.. ...... 8 Aug 1966
Burkina Faso................................................18 Jul 1974 a
Burundi ........................... . .1.. .F..e..b..... .1..9..6..7.. ......27 Oct 1977
Cabo Verde.................................................. 3 Oct 1979 a
Cambodia........................1..2.. .A..p..r..... .1..9..6..6.. ......28 Nov 1983
Participant3 Signature
Accession(a),
Succession(d),
Ratification
Cameroon........................1..2.. .D..e..c..... .1..9..6..6.. ......24 Jun 1971
Canada ............................2..4.. .A..u..g..... .1..9..6..6.. ......14 Oct 1970
Central African
Republic .................... . .7.. .M...a..r.... .1..9..6..6.. ......16 Mar 1971
Chad.............................................................17 Aug 1977 a
Chile................................ . .3.. .O..c..t..... .1..9..6..6.. ......20 Oct 1971
China5,6,7,8 ....................................................29 Dec 1981 a
Colombia ........................2..3.. .M...a..r.... .1..9..6..7.. ...... 2 Sep 1981
Comoros..........................2..2.. .S..e..p..... .2..0..0..0.. ......27 Sep 2004
Congo...........................................................11 Jul 1988 a
Costa Rica.......................1..4.. .M...a..r.... .1..9..6..6.. ......16 Jan 1967
Côte d'Ivoire ................................................ 4 Jan 1973 a
Croatia4 ........................................................12 Oct 1992 d
Cuba................................ . .7.. .J.u..n...... .1..9..6..6.. ......15 Feb 1972
Cyprus.............................1..2.. .D..e..c..... .1..9..6..6.. ......21 Apr 1967
Czech Republic9 ..........................................22 Feb 1993 d
Democratic Republic of
the Congo...............................................21 Apr 1976 a
Denmark10.......................2..1.. .J.u..n...... .1..9..6..6.. ...... 9 Dec 1971
Djibouti...........................1..4.. .J.u..n...... .2..0..0..6.. ......30 Sep 2011
Dominica .....................................................13 May 2019 a
Dominican Republic ....................................25 May 1983 a
Ecuador........................................................22 Sep 1966 a
Egypt...............................2..8.. .S..e..p..... .1..9..6..6.. ...... 1 May 1967
El Salvador ..................................................30 Nov 1979 a
Equatorial Guinea ........................................ 8 Oct 2002 a
Eritrea ..........................................................31 Jul 2001 a
Estonia .........................................................21 Oct 1991 a
Eswatini ....................................................... 7 Apr 1969 a
Ethiopia........................................................23 Jun 1976 a
Fiji ...............................................................11 Jan 1973 d
Annex 8
IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 2
Participant3 Signature
Accession(a),
Succession(d),
Ratification
Finland............................ . .6.. .O..c..t..... .1..9..6..6.. ......14 Jul 1970
France ..........................................................28 Jul 1971 a
Gabon..............................2..0.. .S..e..p..... .1..9..6..6.. ......29 Feb 1980
Gambia.........................................................29 Dec 1978 a
Georgia ........................................................ 2 Jun 1999 a
Germany11.......................1..0.. .F..e..b..... .1..9..6..7.. ......16 May 1969
Ghana.............................. . .8.. .S..e..p..... .1..9..6..6.. ...... 8 Sep 1966
Greece............................. . .7.. .M...a..r.... .1..9..6..6.. ......18 Jun 1970
Grenada...........................1..7.. .D..e..c..... .1..9..8..1.. ......10 May 2013
Guatemala....................... . .8.. .S..e..p..... .1..9..6..7.. ......18 Jan 1983
Guinea.............................2..4.. .M...a..r.... .1..9..6..6.. ......14 Mar 1977
Guinea-Bissau.................1..2.. .S..e..p..... .2..0..0..0.. ...... 1 Nov 2010
Guyana............................1..1.. .D..e..c..... .1..9..6..8.. ......15 Feb 1977
Haiti ................................3..0.. .O..c..t..... .1..9..7..2.. ......19 Dec 1972
Holy See .........................2..1.. .N..o..v..... .1..9..6..6.. ...... 1 May 1969
Honduras......................................................10 Oct 2002 a
Hungary ..........................1..5.. .S..e..p..... .1..9..6..6.. ...... 4 May 1967
Iceland ............................1..4.. .N..o..v..... .1..9..6..6.. ......13 Mar 1967
India ................................ . .2.. .M...a..r.... .1..9..6..7.. ...... 3 Dec 1968
Indonesia......................................................25 Jun 1999 a
Iran (Islamic Republic
of).............................. . .8.. .M...a..r.... .1..9..6..7.. ......29 Aug 1968
Iraq..................................1..8.. .F..e..b..... .1..9..6..9.. ......13 Feb 1970
Ireland.............................2..1.. .M...a..r.... .1..9..6..8.. ......29 Dec 2000
Israel ............................... . .7.. .M...a..r.... .1..9..6..6.. ...... 3 Jan 1979
Italy.................................1..3.. .M...a..r.... .1..9..6..8.. ...... 5 Jan 1976
Jamaica ...........................1..4.. .A..u..g..... .1..9..6..6.. ...... 4 Jun 1971
Japan ............................................................15 Dec 1995 a
Jordan...........................................................30 May 1974 a
Kazakhstan...................................................26 Aug 1998 a
Kenya...........................................................13 Sep 2001 a
Kuwait .........................................................15 Oct 1968 a
Kyrgyzstan................................................... 5 Sep 1997 a
Lao People's
Democratic
Republic .................................................22 Feb 1974 a
Latvia ...........................................................14 Apr 1992 a
Lebanon .......................................................12 Nov 1971 a
Lesotho ........................................................ 4 Nov 1971 a
Liberia.......................................................... 5 Nov 1976 a
Libya............................................................ 3 Jul 1968 a
Liechtenstein................................................ 1 Mar 2000 a
Lithuania......................... . .8.. .J.u..n...... .1..9..9..8.. ......10 Dec 1998
Luxembourg....................1..2.. .D..e..c..... .1..9..6..7.. ...... 1 May 1978
Madagascar.....................1..8.. .D..e..c..... .1..9..6..7.. ...... 7 Feb 1969
Participant3 Signature
Accession(a),
Succession(d),
Ratification
Malawi.........................................................11 Jun 1996 a
Maldives ......................................................24 Apr 1984 a
Mali..............................................................16 Jul 1974 a
Malta............................... . .5.. .S..e..p..... .1..9..6..8.. ......27 May 1971
Marshall Islands...........................................11 Apr 2019 a
Mauritania.......................2..1.. .D..e..c..... .1..9..6..6.. ......13 Dec 1988
Mauritius......................................................30 May 1972 a
Mexico............................ . .1.. .N..o..v..... .1..9..6..6.. ......20 Feb 1975
Monaco ........................................................27 Sep 1995 a
Mongolia......................... . .3.. .M...a..y.... .1..9..6..6.. ...... 6 Aug 1969
Montenegro12 ...............................................23 Oct 2006 d
Morocco..........................1..8.. .S..e..p..... .1..9..6..7.. ......18 Dec 1970
Mozambique ................................................18 Apr 1983 a
Namibia13.....................................................11 Nov 1982 a
Nauru ..............................1..2.. .N..o..v..... .2..0..0..1.. ......
Nepal............................................................30 Jan 1971 a
Netherlands (Kingdom
of the)........................2..4.. .O..c..t..... .1..9..6..6.. ......10 Dec 1971
New Zealand14 ................2..5.. .O..c..t..... .1..9..6..6.. ......22 Nov 1972
Nicaragua.....................................................15 Feb 1978 a
Niger ...............................1..4.. .M...a..r.... .1..9..6..6.. ......27 Apr 1967
Nigeria .........................................................16 Oct 1967 a
North Macedonia4........................................18 Jan 1994 d
Norway ...........................2..1.. .N..o..v..... .1..9..6..6.. ...... 6 Aug 1970
Oman ........................................................... 2 Jan 2003 a
Pakistan...........................1..9.. .S..e..p..... .1..9..6..6.. ......21 Sep 1966
Palau ...............................2..0.. .S..e..p..... .2..0..1..1.. ......
Panama............................ . .8.. .D..e..c..... .1..9..6..6.. ......16 Aug 1967
Papua New Guinea ......................................27 Jan 1982 a
Paraguay .........................1..3.. .S..e..p..... .2..0..0..0.. ......18 Aug 2003
Peru.................................2..2.. .J.u..l...... .1..9..6..6.. ......29 Sep 1971
Philippines ...................... . .7.. .M...a..r.... .1..9..6..6.. ......15 Sep 1967
Poland ............................. . .7.. .M...a..r.... .1..9..6..6.. ...... 5 Dec 1968
Portugal7 ......................................................24 Aug 1982 a
Qatar ............................................................22 Jul 1976 a
Republic of Korea........... . .8.. .A..u..g..... .1..9..7..8.. ...... 5 Dec 1978
Republic of Moldova...................................26 Jan 1993 a
Romania.......................................................15 Sep 1970 a
Russian Federation ......... . .7.. .M...a..r.... .1..9..6..6.. ...... 4 Feb 1969
Rwanda ........................................................16 Apr 1975 a
San Marino .....................1..1.. .D..e..c..... .2..0..0..1.. ......12 Mar 2002
Sao Tome and Principe... . .6.. .S..e..p..... .2..0..0..0.. ......10 Jan 2017
Saudi Arabia ................................................23 Sep 1997 a
Senegal............................2..2.. .J.u..l...... .1..9..6..8.. ......19 Apr 1972
Annex 8
IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 3
Participant3 Signature
Accession(a),
Succession(d),
Ratification
Serbia4..........................................................12 Mar 2001 d
Seychelles .................................................... 7 Mar 1978 a
Sierra Leone....................1..7.. .N..o..v..... .1..9..6..6.. ...... 2 Aug 1967
Singapore ........................1..9.. .O..c..t..... .2..0..1..5.. ......27 Nov 2017
Slovakia9 ......................................................28 May 1993 d
Slovenia4 ...................................................... 6 Jul 1992 d
Solomon Islands ..........................................17 Mar 1982 d
Somalia ...........................2..6.. .J.a..n...... .1..9..6..7.. ......26 Aug 1975
South Africa.................... . .3.. .O..c..t..... .1..9..9..4.. ......10 Dec 1998
Spain ............................................................13 Sep 1968 a
Sri Lanka......................................................18 Feb 1982 a
St. Kitts and Nevis .......................................13 Oct 2006 a
St. Lucia.......................................................14 Feb 1990 d
St. Vincent and the
Grenadines ............................................. 9 Nov 1981 a
State of Palestine ......................................... 2 Apr 2014 a
Sudan ...........................................................21 Mar 1977 a
Suriname......................................................15 Mar 1984 d
Sweden............................ . .5.. .M...a..y.... .1..9..6..6.. ...... 6 Dec 1971
Switzerland ..................................................29 Nov 1994 a
Syrian Arab Republic ..................................21 Apr 1969 a
Tajikistan .....................................................11 Jan 1995 a
Thailand15 ....................................................28 Jan 2003 a
Timor-Leste .................................................16 Apr 2003 a
Participant3 Signature
Accession(a),
Succession(d),
Ratification
Togo............................................................. 1 Sep 1972 a
Tonga...........................................................16 Feb 1972 a
Trinidad and Tobago ...... . .9.. .J.u..n...... .1..9..6..7.. ...... 4 Oct 1973
Tunisia ............................1..2.. .A..p..r..... .1..9..6..6.. ......13 Jan 1967
Türkiye............................1..3.. .O..c..t..... .1..9..7..2.. ......16 Sep 2002
Turkmenistan...............................................29 Sep 1994 a
Uganda.........................................................21 Nov 1980 a
Ukraine ........................... . .7.. .M...a..r.... .1..9..6..6.. ...... 7 Mar 1969
United Arab Emirates ..................................20 Jun 1974 a
United Kingdom of
Great Britain and
Northern Ireland5,16 ...1..1.. .O..c..t..... .1..9..6..6.. ...... 7 Mar 1969
United Republic of
Tanzania.................................................27 Oct 1972 a
United States of
America.....................2..8.. .S..e..p..... .1..9..6..6.. ......21 Oct 1994
Uruguay ..........................2..1.. .F..e..b..... .1..9..6..7.. ......30 Aug 1968
Uzbekistan ...................................................28 Sep 1995 a
Venezuela (Bolivarian
Republic of) ..............2..1.. .A..p..r..... .1..9..6..7.. ......10 Oct 1967
Viet Nam...................................................... 9 Jun 1982 a
Yemen17,18....................................................18 Oct 1972 a
Zambia ............................1..1.. .O..c..t..... .1..9..6..8.. ...... 4 Feb 1972
Zimbabwe ....................................................13 May 1991 a
Declarations and Reservations
(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon ratification, accession or
succession.
For objections thereto and declarations recognizing the competence of the Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination, see hereinafter.)
AFGHANISTAN
While acceding to the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the
Democratic Republic of Afghanistan does not consider
itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the
Convention since according to this article, in the event of
disagreement between two or several States Parties to the
Convention on the interpretation and implementation of
provisions of the Convention, the matters could be
referred to the International Court of Justice upon the
request of only one side.
The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, therefore,
states that should any disagreement emerge on the
interpretation and implementation of the Convention, the
matter will be referred to the International Court of
Justice only if all concerned parties agree with that
procedure.
Furthermore, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
states that the provisions of articles 17 and 18 of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination have a discriminatory nature
against some states and therefore are not in conformity
with the principle of universality of international treaties.
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
"The Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda entrenches
and guarantees to every person in Antigua and Barbuda
the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual
irrespective of race or place of origin. The Constitution
prescribes judicial processes to be observed in the event
of the violation of any of these rights, whether by the state
or by a private individual. Acceptance of the Convention
by the Government of Antigua and Barbuda does not
imply the acceptance of obligations going beyond the
constitutional limits nor the acceptance of any obligations
to introduce judicial processes beyond those provided in
the Constitution.
The Government of Antigua and Barbuda interprets
article 4 of the Convention as requiring a Party to enact
measures in the fields covered by subparagraphs (a), (b)
and (c) of that article only where it is considered that the
need arises to enact such legislation."
Annex 8
IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 4
AUSTRALIA
"The Government of Australia ... declares that
Australia is not at present in a position specifically to treat
as offences all the matters covered by article 4 (a) of the
Convention. Acts of the kind there mentioned are
punishable only to the extent provided by the existing
criminal law dealing with such matters as the maintenance
of public order, public mischief, assault, riot, criminal
libel, conspiracy and attempts. It is the intention of the
Australian Government, at the first suitable moment, to
seek from Parliament legislation specifically
implementing the terms of article 4 (a)."
AUSTRIA
"Article 4 of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
provides that the measures specifically described in subparagraphs
(a), (b) and (c) shall be undertaken with due
regard to the principles embodied in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set
forth in article 5 of the Convention. The Republic of
Austria therefore considers that through such measures
the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the
right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association
may not be jeopardized. These rights are laid down in
articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights; they were reaffirmed by the General Assembly of
the United Nations when it adopted articles 19 and 21 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
and are referred to in article 5 (d) (viii) and (ix) of the
present Convention."
BAHAMAS
"Firstly the Government of the Commonwealth of the
Bahamas wishes to state its understanding of article 4 of
the International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination. It interprets article 4 as
requiring a party to the Convention to adopt further
legislative measures in the fields covered by
subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only in so far
as it may consider with due regard to the principles
embodied in the Universal Declaration set out in article 5
of the Convention (in particular to freedom of opinion and
expression and the right of freedom of peaceful assembly
and association) that some legislative addition to, or
variation of existing law and practice in these fields is
necessary for the attainment of the ends specified in
article 4. Lastly, the Constitution of the Commonwealth
of the Bahamas entrenches and guarantees to every person
in the Commonwealth of the Bahamas the fundamental
rights and freedoms of the individual irrespective of his
race or place of origin. The Constitution prescribes
judicial process to be observed in the event of the
violation of any of these rights whether by the State or by
a private individual. Acceptance of this Convention by
the Commonwealth of the Bahamas does not imply the
acceptance of obligations going beyond the constitutional
limits nor the acceptance of any obligations to introduce
judicial process beyond these prescribed under the
Constitution."
BAHRAIN18,19
"With reference to article 22 of the Convention, the
Government of the State of Bahrain declares that, for the
submission of any dispute in terms of this article to the
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the
express consent of all the parties to the dispute is required
in each case.
..."
BARBADOS
"The Constitution of Barbados entrenches and
guarantees to every person in Barbados the fundamental
rights and freedoms of the individual irrespective of his
race or place of origin. The Constitution prescribes
judicial processes to be observed in the event of the
violation of any of these rights whether by the State or by
a private individual. Accession to the Convention does
not imply the acceptance of obligations going beyond the
constitutional limits nor the acceptance of any obligations
to introduce judicial processes beyond those provided in
the Constitution.
The Government of Barbados interprets article 4 of the
said Convention as requiring a Party to the Convention to
enact measures in the fields covered by sub-paragraphs
(a), (b) and (c) of that article only where it is considered
that the need arises to enact such legislation."
BELARUS20
The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic states that
the provision in article 17, paragraph 1, of the Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
whereby a number of States are deprived of the
opportunity to become Parties to the Convention is of a
discriminatory nature, and hold that, in accordance with
the principle of the sovereign equality of States, the
Convention should be open to participation by all
interested States without discrimination or restriction of
any kind.
BELGIUM
In order to meet the requirements of article 4 of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination, the Kingdom of Belgium will
take care to adapt its legislation to the obligations it has
assumed in becoming a party to the said Convention.
The Kingdom of Belgium nevertheless wishes to
emphasize the importance which it attaches to the fact
that article 4 of the Convention provides that the measures
laid down in subparagraphs (a), (b), and (c) should be
adopted with due regard to the principles embodied in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights
expressly set forth in article 5 of the Convention. The
Kingdom of Belgium therefore considers that the
obligations imposed by article 4 must be reconciled with
the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the
right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
Those rights are proclaimed in articles 19 and 20 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and have been
reaffirmed in articles 19 and 21 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They have also
been stated in article 5, subparagraph (d) (viii) and (ix) of
the said Convention.
The Kingdom of Belgium also wishes to emphasize
the importance which it attaches to respect for the rights
set forth in the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, especially in
articles 10 and 11 dealing respectively with freedom of
opinion and expression and freedom of peaceful assembly
and association.
BULGARIA21
The Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria
considers that the provisions of article 17, paragraph 1,
and article 18, paragraph 1, of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination, the effect of which is to prevent sovereign
States from becoming Parties to the Convention, are of a
discriminatory nature. The Convention, in accordance
with the principle of the sovereign equality of States,
should be open for accession by all States without any
discrimination whatsoever.
Annex 8
IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 5
CHINA22
The People's Republic of China has reservations on
the provisions of article 22 of the Convention and will not
be bound by it. (The reservation was circulated by the
Secretary-General on 13 January 1982.)
The signing and ratification of the said Convention by
the Taiwan authorities in the name of China are illegal
and null and void.
CUBA
The Government of the Republic of Cuba will make
such reservations as it may deem appropriate if and when
the Convention is ratified.
The Revolutionary Government of the Republic of
Cuba does not accept the provision in article 22 of the
Convention to the effect that disputes between two or
more States Parties shall be referred to the International
Court of Justice, since it considers that such disputes
should be settled exclusively by the procedures expressly
provided for in the Convention or by negotiation through
the diplomatic channel between the disputants.
This Convention, intended to eliminate all forms of
racial discrimination, should not, as it expressly does in
articles 17 and 18, exclude States not Members of the
United Nations, members of the specialized agencies or
Parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice
from making an effective contribution under the
Convention, since these articles constitute in themselves a
form of discrimination that is at variance with the
principles set out in the Convention; the Revolutionary
Government of the Republic of Cuba accordingly ratifies
the Convention, but with the qualification just indicated.
CZECH REPUBLIC9
DENMARK10
EGYPT18,23
"The United Arab Republic does not consider itself
bound by the provisions of article 22 of the Convention,
under which any dispute between two or more States
Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of
the Convention is, at the request of any of the parties to
the dispute, to be referred to the International Court of
Justice for decision, and it states that, in each individual
case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is
necessary for referring the dispute to the International
Court of Justice."
EQUATORIAL GUINEA
The Republic of Equatorial Guinea does not consider
itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the
Convention, under which any dispute between two or
more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or
application of the Convention is, at the request of any of
the parties to the dispute, to be referred to the
International Court of Justice for decision. The Republic
of Equatorial Guinea considers that, in each individual
case, the consent of all parties is necessary for referring
the dispute to the International Court of Justice.
FIJI24
FRANCE25
With regard to article 4, France wishes to make it clear
that it interprets the reference made therein to the
principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and to the rights set forth in article 5 of the Convention as
releasing the States Parties from the obligation to enact
anti-discrimination legislation which is incompatible with
the freedoms of opinion and expression and of peaceful
assembly and association guaranteed by those texts.
With regard to article 6, France declares that the
question of remedy through tribunals is, as far as France
is concerned, governed by the rules of ordinary law.
With regard to article 15, France's accession to the
Convention may not be interpreted as implying any
change in its position regarding the resolution mentioned
in that provision.
GRENADA26
“The Constitution of Grenada entrenches and
guarantees to every person in the State of Grenada the
fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual
irrespective of his race or place of origin. The
Constitution prescribes judicial processes to be observed
in the event of the violation of any of these rights whether
by the State or by a private individual. Ratification of the
Convention by Grenada does not imply the acceptance of
obligations going beyond the constitutional limits nor the
acceptance of any obligations to introduce judicial
processes beyond those provided in the Constitution.
The Government of Grenada interprets article 4 of the
said Convention as requiring a Party to the Convention to
enact measures in the fields covered by sub-paragraphs
(a), (b) and (c) of that article only where it considers that
the need arises to enact such legislation.”
GUYANA
"The Government of the Republic of Guyana do not
interpret the provisions of this Convention as imposing
upon them any obligation going beyond the limits set by
the Constitution of Guyana or imposing upon them any
obligation requiring the introduction of judicial processes
going beyond those provided under the same
Constitution."
HUNGARY27
"The Hungarian People's Republic considers that the
provisions of article 17, paragraph 1, and of article 18,
paragraph 1, of the Convention, barring accession to the
Convention by all States, are of a discriminating nature
and contrary to international law. The Hungarian People's
Republic maintains its general position that multilateral
treaties of a universal character should, in conformity
with the principles of sovereign equality of States, be
open for accession by all States without any
discrimination whatever."
INDIA28
"The Government of India declare that for reference of
any dispute to the International Court of Justice for
decision in terms of Article 22 of the International
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial
Discrimination, the consent of all parties to the dispute is
necessary in each individual case."
INDONESIA
"The Government of the Republic of Indonesia does
not consider itself bound by the provision of Article 22
and takes the position that disputes relating to the
interpretation and application of the [Convention] which
cannot be settled through the channel provided for in the
said article, may be referred to the International Court of
Justice only with the consent of all the parties to the
dispute."
IRAQ18
"The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Iraq hereby declares that signature for and on behalf of
the Republic of Iraq of the Convention on the Elimination
Annex 8
IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 6
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which was
adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations
on 21 December 1965, as well as approval by the Arab
States of the said Convention and entry into it by their
respective governments, shall in no way signify
recognition of Israel or lead to entry by the Arab States
into such dealings with Israel as may be regulated by the
said Convention.
"Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Iraq
does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article
twenty-two of the Convention afore-mentioned and
affirms its reservation that it does not accept the
compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of
Justice provided for in the said article."
1. The acceptance and ratification of the
Convention by Iraq shall in no way signify recognition of
Israel or be conducive to entry by Iraq into such dealings
with Israel as are regulated by the Convention;
2. Iraq does not accept the provisions of article 22
of the Convention, concerning the compulsory
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The
Republic of Iraq does not consider itself to be bound by
the provisions of article 22 of the Convention and deems
it necessary that in all cases the approval of all parties to
the dispute be secured before the case is referred to the
International Court of Justice.
IRELAND
“Article 4 of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
provides that the measures specifically described in subparagraphs
(a), (b) and (c) shall be undertaken with due
regard to the principles embodied in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set
forth in Article 5 of the Convention. Ireland threfore
considers that through such measures, the right to
freedom of opinion and expression and the right to
peaceful assembly and association may not be
jeopardised. These rights are laid down in Articles 19 and
20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; they
were reaffirmed by the General Assembly of the
United Nations when it adopted Articles 19 and 21 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
are referred to in Article 5 (d)(viii) and (ix) of the present
Convention.”
ISRAEL
"The State of Israel does not consider itself bound by
the provisions of article 22 of the said Convention."
ITALY
(a) The positive measures, provided for in article 4
of the Convention and specifically described in subparagraphs
(a) and (b) of that article, designed to eradicate
all incitement to, or acts of, discrimination, are to be
interpreted, as that article provides, "with due regard to
the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article
5" of the Convention. Consequently, the obligations
deriving from the aforementioned article 4 are not to
jeopardize the right to freedom of opinion and expression
and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association which are laid down in articles 19 and 20 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, were
reaffirmed by the General Assembly of the United
Nations when it adopted articles 19 and 21 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and
are referred to in articles 5 (d) (viii) and (ix) of the
Convention. In fact, the Italian Government, in
conformity with the obligations resulting from Articles 55
(c) and 56 of the Charter of the United Nations, remains
faithful to the principle laid down in article 29 (2) of the
Universal Declaration, which provides that "in the
exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be
subject only to such limitations as are determined by law
solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and
respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of
meeting the just requirements of morality, public order
and the general welfare in a democratic society."
(b) Effective remedies against acts of racial
discrimination which violate his individual rights and
fundamental freedoms will be assured to everyone, in
conformity with article 6 ofthe Convention, by the
ordinary courts within the framework of their respective
jurisdiction. Claims for reparation for any damage
suffered as a result of acts of racial discrimination must be
brought against the persons responsible for the malicious
or criminal acts which caused such damage.
JAMAICA
"The Constitution of Jamaica entrenches and
guarantees to every person in Jamaica the fundamental
rights and freedoms of the individual irrespective of his
race or place of origin. The Constitution prescribes
judicial processes to be observed in the event of the
violation of any of these rights whether by the State or by
a private individual. Ratification of the Convention by
Jamaica does not imply the acceptance of obligations
going beyond the constitutional limits nor the acceptance
of any obligation to introduce judicial processes beyond
those prescribed under the Constitution."
JAPAN
"In applying the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b)
of article 4 of the [said Convention] Japan fulfills the
obligations under those provisions to the extent that
fulfillment of the obligations is compatible with the
guarantee of the rights to freedom of assembly,
association and expression and other rights under the
Constitution of Japan, noting the phrase `with due regard
to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in
article 5 of this Convention' referred to in article 4."
KUWAIT18
"In acceding to the said Convention, the Government
of the State of Kuwait takes the view that its accession
does not in any way imply recognition of Israel, nor does
it oblige it to apply the provisions of the Convention in
respect of the said country.
"The Government of the State of Kuwait does not
consider itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the
Convention, under which any dispute between two or
more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or
application of the Convention is, at the request of any
party to the dispute, to be referred to the International
Court of Justice for decision, and it states that, in each
individual case, the consent of all parties to such a dispute
is necessary for referring the dispute to the International
Court of Justice."
LEBANON
The Republic of Lebanon does not consider itself
bound by the provisions of article 22 of the Convention,
under which any dispute between two or more States
Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of
the Convention is, at the request of any party to the
dispute, to be referred to the International Court of Justice
for decision, and it states that, in each individual case, the
consent of all States parties to such a dispute is necessary
for referring the dispute to the International Court of
Justice.
Annex 8
IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 7
LIBYA18
"(a) The Kingdom of Libya does not
consider itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the
Convention, under which any dispute between two or
more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or
application of the Convention is, at the request of any of
the parties to the dispute, to be referred to the
International Court of Justice for decision, and it states
that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to
such a dispute is necessary for referring the dispute to the
International Court of Justice.
"(b) It is understood that the accession to
this Convention does not mean in any way a recognition
of Israel by the Government of the Kingdom of Libya.
Furthermore, no treaty relations will arise between the
Kingdom of Libya and Israel."
MADAGASCAR
The Government of the Malagasy Republic does not
consider itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the
Convention, under which any dispute between two or
more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or
application of the Convention is, at the request of any of
the parties to the dispute, to be referred to the
International Court of Justice for decision, and states that,
in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a
dispute is necessary for referral of the dispute to the
International Court.
MALTA
"The Government of Malta wishes to state its
understanding of certain articles in the Convention.
"It interprets article 4 as requiring a party to the
Convention to adopt further measures in the fields
covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article
should it consider, with due regard to the principles
embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the rights set forth in article 5 of the Convention, that
the need arises to enact ‘ ad hoc ’ legislation, in addition
to or variation of existing law and practice to bring to an
end any act of racial discrimination.
"Further, the Government of Malta interprets the
requirements in article 6 concerning `reparation or
satisfaction' as being fulfilled if one or other of these
forms of redress is made available and interprets
`satisfaction' as including any form of redress effective to
bring the discriminatory conduct to an end."
MONACO
Monaco reserves the right to apply its own legal
provisions concerning the admission of foreigners to the
labour market of the Principality.
Monaco interprets the reference in that article to the
principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
and to the rights enumerated in article 5 of the Convention
as releasing States Parties from the obligation to
promulgate repressive laws which are incompatible with
freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of
peaceful assembly and association, which are guaranteed
by those instruments.
MONGOLIA29
The Mongolian People's Republic states that the
provision in article 17, paragraph 1, of the Convention
whereby a number of States are deprived of the
opportunity to become Parties to the Convention is of a
discriminatory nature, and it holds that, in accordance
with the principle of the sovereign equality of States, the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination should be open to participation by all
interested States without discrimination or restriction of
any kind.
MOROCCO
The Kingdom of Morocco does not consider itself
bound by the provisions of article 22 of the Convention,
under which any dispute between two or more States
Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of
the Convention is, at the request of any of the parties to
the dispute, to be referred to the International Court of
Justice for decision. The Kingdom of Morocco states
that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to
such a dispute is necessary for referring the dispute to the
International Court of Justice.
MOZAMBIQUE
"The People's Republic of Mozambique does not
consider to be bound by the provision of article 22 and
wishes to restate that for the submission of any dispute to
the International Court of Justice for decision in terms of
the said article, the consent of all parties to such a dispute
is necessary in each individual case."
NEPAL
"The Constitution of Nepal contains provisions for the
protection of individual rights, including the right to
freedom of speech and expression, the right to form
unions and associations not motivated by party politics
and the right to freedom of professing his/her own
religion; and nothing in the Convention shall be deemed
to require or to authorize legislation or other action by
Nepal incompatible with the provisions of the
Constitution of Nepal.
"His Majesty's Government interprets article 4 of the
said Convention as requiring a Party to the Convention to
adopt further legislative measures in the fields covered by
sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only insofar
as His Majesty's Government may consider, with due
regard to the principles embodied in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, that some legislative
addition to, or variation of, existing law and practice in
those fields is necessary for the attainment of the end
specified in the earlier part of article 4. His Majesty's
Government interprets the requirement in article 6
concerning `reparation or satisfaction' as being fulfilled if
one or other of these forms of redress is made available;
and further interprets `satisfaction' as including any form
of redress effective to bring the discriminatory conduct to
an end.
"His Majesty's Government does not consider itself
bound by the provision of article 22 of the Convention
under which any dispute between two or more States
Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of
the Convention is, at the request of any of the parties to
the dispute, to be referred to the International Court of
Justice for decision."
PAPUA NEW GUINEA22
"The Government of Papua New Guinea interprets
article 4 of the Convention as requiring a party to the
Convention to adopt further legislative measures in the
areas covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that
article only in so far as it may consider with due regard to
the principles contained in the Universal Declaration set
out in Article 5 of the Convention that some legislative
addition to, or variation of existing law and practice, is
necessary to give effect to the provisions of article 4. In
addition, the Constitution of Papua New Guinea
guarantees certain fundamental rights and freedoms to all
persons irrespective of their race or place of origin. The
Constitution also provides for judicial protection of these
rights and freedoms. Acceptance of this Convention does
Annex 8
IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 8
not therefore indicate the acceptance of obligations by the
Government of Papua New Guinea which go beyond
those provided by the Constitution, nor does it indicate
the acceptance of any obligation to introduce judicial
process beyond that provided by the Constitution". (The
reservation was circulated by the Secretary-General on
22 February 1982.)
POLAND30
The Polish People's Republic considers that the
provisions of article 17, paragraph 1, and article18,
paragraph 1, of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which
make it impossible for many States to become parties to
the said Convention, are of a discriminatory nature and
are incompatible with the object and purpose of that
Convention.
The Polish People's Republic considers that, in
accordance with the principle of the sovereign equality of
States, the said Convention should be open for
participation by all States without any discrimination or
restrictions whatsoever.
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
"The Government of the Republic of Korea recognizes
the competence of the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination to receive and consider
communications from individuals or groups of individuals
within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea claiming
to be victims of a violation by the Republic of Korea of
any of the rights set forth in the said Convention."
ROMANIA31
...
The Council of State of the Socialist Republic of
Romania declares that the provisions of articles 17 and 18
of the International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination are not in accordance
with the principle that multilateral treaties, the aims and
objectives of which concern the world community as a
whole, should be open to participation by all States.
RUSSIAN FEDERATION20
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics states that the
provision in article 17, paragraph 1, of the Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
whereby a number of States are deprived of the
opportunity to become Parties to the Convention is of a
discriminatory nature, and hold that, in accordance with
the principle of the sovereign equality of States, the
Convention should be open to participation by all
interested States without discrimination or restriction of
any kind.
RWANDA32
SAUDI ARABIA
[The Government of Saudi Arabia declares that it will]
implement the provisions [of the above Convention],
providing these do not conflict with the precepts of the
Islamic Shariah .
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia shall not be bound by
the provisions of article (22) of this Convention, since it
considers that any dispute should be referred to the
International Court of Justice only with the approval of
the States Parties to the dispute.
SINGAPORE
"The Government of the Republic of Singapore makes
the following reservations and declarations in relation to
articles 2, 6 and 22 of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
(hereinafter referred to as the “Convention”) adopted by
the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York
on the 21st day of December 1965 and signed on behalf
of the Republic of Singapore today:
(1) The Republic of Singapore reserves the right to
apply its policies concerning the admission and regulation
of foreign work pass holders, with a view to promoting
integration and maintaining cohesion within its racially
diverse society.
(2) The Republic of Singapore understands that the
obligation imposed by Article 2, paragraph 1 (d) of the
Convention may be implemented by means other than
legislation if such means are appropriate, and if
legislation is not required by circumstances.
(3) The Republic of Singapore interprets the
requirement in Article 6 of the Convention concerning
“reparation or satisfaction” as being fulfilled if one or
other of these forms of redress is made available and
interprets “satisfaction” as including any form of redress
effective to bring the discriminatory conduct to an end.
(4) With reference to Article 22 of the Convention, the
Republic of Singapore states that before any dispute to
which the Republic of Singapore is a party may be
submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of
Justice under this Article, the specific consent of the
Republic of Singapore is required in each case."
SLOVAKIA9
SPAIN33
SWITZERLAND
Switzerland reserves the right to take the legislative
measures necessary for the implementation of article 4,
taking due account of freedom of opinion and freedom of
association, provided for inter alia in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
Switzerland reserves the right to apply its legal
provisions concerning the admission of foreigners to the
Swiss market.
SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC18
1. The accession of the Syrian Arab Republic to
this Convention shall in no way signify recognition of
Israel or entry into a relationship with it regarding any
matter regulated by the said Convention.
2. The Syrian Arab Republic does not consider
itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the
Convention, under which any dispute between two or
more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or
application of the Convention is, at the request of any of
the Parties to the dispute, to be referred to the
International Court of Justice for decision. The Syrian
Arab Republic states that, in each individual case, the
consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary for
referring the dispute to the International Court of Justice.
THAILAND
"General Interpretative Declaration
The Kingdom of Thailand does not interpret and apply
the provisions of this Convention as imposing upon the
Kingdom of Thailand any obligation beyond the confines
of the Constitution and the laws of the Kingdom of
Thailand. In addition, such interpretation and application
shall be limited to or consistent with the obligations under
other international human rights instruments to which the
Kingdom of Thailand is party.
Reservations
1. The Kingdom of Thailand does not consider
itself bound by the provisions of Article 22 of the
Convention."
Annex 8
IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 9
TONGA34
"To the extent, [...], that any law relating to land in
Tonga which prohibits or restricts the alienation of land
by the indigenous inhabitants may not fulfil the
obligations referred to in article 5 (d) (v), [...], the
Kingdom of Tonga reserves the right not to apply the
Convention to Tonga.
"Secondly, the Kingdom of Tonga wishes to state its
understanding of certain articles in the Convention. It
interprets article 4 as requiring a party to the Convention
to adopt further legislative measures in the fields covered
by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only in so
far as it may consider with due regard to the principles
embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of the
Convention (in particular the right to freedom of opinion
and expression and the right to freedom of peaceful
assembly and association) that some legislative addition
to or variation of existing law and practice in those fields
is necessary for the attainment of the end specified in the
earlier part of article 4. Further, the Kingdom of Tonga
interprets the requirement in article 6 concerning
`reparation or satisfaction' as being fulfilled if one or
other of these forms of redress is made available and
interprets `satisfaction' as including any form of redress
effective to bring the discriminatory conduct to an end. In
addition it interprets article 20 and the other related
provisions of Part III of the Convention as meaning that if
a reservation is not accepted the State making the
reservation does not become a Party to the Convention.
"Lastly, the Kingdom of Tonga maintains its position
in regard to article 15. In its view this article is
discriminatory in that it establishes a procedure for the
receipt of petitions relating to dependent territories while
making no comparable provision for States without such
territories. Moreover, the article purports to establish
arocedure applicable to the dependent territories of States
whether or not those States have become parties to the
Convention. His Majesty's Government have decided that
the Kingdom of Tonga should accede to the Convention,
these objections notwithstanding because of the
importance they attach to the Convention as a whole."
TÜRKIYE
"The Republic of Turkey declares that it will
implement the provisions of this Convention only to the
States Parties with which it has diplomatic relations.
The Republic of Turkey declares that this Convention
is ratified exclusively with regard to the national territory
where the Constitution and the legal and administrative
order of the Republic of Turkey are applied.
The Republic of Turkey does not consider itself bound
by Article 22 of this Convention. The explicit consent of
the Republic of Turkey is necessary in each individual
case before any dispute to which the Republic of Turkey
is party concerning the interpretation or application of this
Convention may be referred to the International Court of
Justice."
UKRAINE20
The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic states that the
provision in article 17, paragraph 1, of the Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
whereby a number of States are deprived of the
opportunity to become Parties to the Convention is of a
discriminatory nature, and hold that, in accordance with
the principle of the sovereign equality of States, the
Convention should be open to participation by all
interested States without discrimination or restriction of
any kind.
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES18
"The accession of the United Arab Emirates to this
Convention shall in no way amount to recognition of nor
the establishment of any treaty relations with Israel."
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN
IRELAND
Subject to the following reservation and interpretative
statements:
"First, in the present circumstances deriving from the
usurpation of power in Rhodesia by the illegal régime, the
United Kingdom must sign subject to a reservation of the
right not to apply the Convention to Rhodesia unless and
until the United Kingdom informs the Secretary-General
of the United Nations that it is in a position to ensure that
the obligations imposed by the Convention in respect of
that territory can be fully implemented.
"Secondly, the United Kingdom wishes to state its
under- standing of certain articles in the Convention. It
interprets article 4 as requiring a party to the Convention
to adopt further legislative measures in the fields covered
by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only in so
far as it may consider with due regard to the principles
embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of the
Convention (in particular the right to freedom of opinion
and expression and the right to freedom of peaceful
assembly and association) that some legislative addition
to or variation of existing law and practice in those fields
is necessary for the attainment of the end specified in the
earlier part of article 4. Further, the United Kingdom
interprets the requirement in article 6 concerning
`reparation or satisfaction' as being fulfilled if one or
other of these forms of redress is made available and
interprets `satisfaction' as including any form of redress
effective to bring the discriminatory conduct to an end. In
addition it interprets article 20 and the other related
provisions of Part III of the Convention as meaning that if
a reservation is not accepted the State making the
reservation does not become a Party to the Convention.
"Lastly, the United Kingdom maintains its position in
regard to article 15. In its view this article is
discriminatory in that it establishes arocedure for the
receipt of petitions relating to dependent territories while
making no comparable provision for States without such
territories. Moreover, the article purports to establish a
procedure applicable to the dependent territories of States
whether or not those States have become parties to the
Convention. Her Majesty's Government have decided
that the United Kingdom should sign the Convention,
these objections notwithstanding, because of the
importance they attach to the Convention as a whole."
"First, the reservation and interpretative statements
made by the United Kingdom at the time of signature of
the Convention are maintained.
"Secondly, the United Kingdom does not regard the
Commonwealth Immigrants Acts, 1962 and 1968, or their
application, as involving any racial discrimination within
the meaning of paragraph 1 of article 1, or any other
provision of the Convention, and fully reserves its right to
continue to apply those Acts.
"Lastly, to the extent if any, that any law relating to
election in Fiji may not fulfil the obligations referred to in
article 5 (c), that any law relating to land in Fiji which
prohibits or restricts the alienation of land by the
indigenous inhabitants may not fulfil the obligations
referred to in article 5 (d) (v), or that the school system of
Fiji may not fulfil the obligations referred to in articles 2,
3 or 5 (e) (v), the United Kingdom reserves the right not
to apply the Convention to Fiji."
Annex 8
IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 10
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
"The Constitution of the United States contains
provisions for the protection of individual rights, such as
the right of free speech, and nothing in the Convention
shall be deemed to require or to authorize legislation or
other action by the United States of America incompatible
with the provisions of the Constitution of the United
States of America."
"I. The Senate's advice and consent is
subject to the following reservations:
(1) That the Constitution and laws of the
United States contain extensive protections of individual
freedom of speech, expression and association.
Accordingly, the United States does not accept any
obligation under this Convention, in particular under
articles 4 and 7, to restrict those rights, through the
adoption of legislation or any other measures, to the
extent that they are protected by the Constitution and laws
of the United States.
(2) That the Constitution and laws of the
United States establish extensive protections against
discrimination, reaching significant areas of nongovernmental
activity. Individual privacy and freedom
from governmental interference in private conduct,
however, are also recognized as among the fundamental
values which shape our free and democratic society. The
United States understands that the identification of the
rights protected under the Convention by reference in
article 1 to fields of `public life' reflects a similar
distinction between spheres of public conduct that are
customarily the subject of governmental regulation, and
spheres of private conduct that are not. To the extent,
however, that the Convention calls for a broader
regulation of private conduct, the United States does not
accept any obligation under this Convention to enact
legislation or take other measures under paragraph (1) of
article 2, subparagraphs (1) (c) and (d) of article 2, article
3 and article 5 with respect to private conduct except as
mandated by the Constitution and laws of the United
States.
(3) That with reference to article 22 of the
Convention, before any dispute to which the United States
is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice under this article, the
specific consent of the United States is required in each
case.
II. The Senate's advice and consent is
subject to the following understanding, which shall apply
to the obligations of the United States under this
Convention:
That the United States understands that this
Convention shall be implemented by the Federal
Government to the extent that it exercises jurisdiction
over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the
state and local governments. To the extent that state and
local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters,
the Federal Government shall, as necessary, take
appropriate measures to ensure the fulfilment of this
Convention.
III. The Senate's advice and consent is
subject to the following declaration:
That the United States declares that the provisions of
the Convention are not self-executing."
VIET NAM22
(1) The Government of the Socialist Republic of
Viet Nam declares that the provisions of article 17 (1) and
of article 18 (1) of the Convention whereby a number of
States are deprived of the opportunity of becoming Parties
to the said Convention are of a discriminatory nature and
it considers that, in accordance with the principle of the
sovereign equality of States, the Convention should be
open to participation by all States without discrimination
or restriction of any kind.
(2) The Government of the Socialist Republic of
Viet Nam does not consider itself bound by the provisions
of article 22 of the Convention and holds that, for any
dispute with regard to the interpretation or application of
the Convention to be brought before the International
Court of Justice, the consent of all parties to the dispute is
necessary. (The reservation was circulated by the
Secretary-General on 10 August 1982.)
YEMEN17,18
"The accession of the People's Democratic Republic of
Yemen to this Convention shall in no way signify
recognition of Israel or entry into a relationship with it
regarding any matter regulated by the said Convention.
"The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen does
not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 22
of the Convention, under which any dispute between two
or more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or
application of the Convention is, at the request of any of
the parties to the dispute, to be referred to the
International Court of Justice for decision, and states that,
in each individual case, the consent of all parties to such a
dispute is necessary for referral of the dispute to the
International Court of Justice.
"The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen states
that the provisions of Article 17, paragraph 1, and Article
18, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination whereby a number of
States are deprived of the opportunity to become Parties
to the Convention is of a discriminatory nature, and holds
that, in accordance with the principle of the sovereign
equality of States, the Convention should be opened to
participation by all interested States without
discrimination or restriction of any kind."
Objections
(Unless otherwise indicated, the objections were made
upon ratification, accession or succession.)
AUSTRALIA
"In accordance with article 20 (2), Australia objects to
[the reservations made by Yemen] which it considers
impermissible as being incompatible with the object and
purpose of the Convention."
AUSTRIA
"Austria is of the view that a reservation by which a
State limits its responsibilities under the Convention in a
general and unspecified manner creates doubts as to the
commitment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with its
obligations under the Convention, essential for the
fulfilment of its objection and purpose. According to
paragraph 2 of article 20 a reservation incompatible with
the object and purpose of this Convention shall not be
permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to
which they have chosen to become Parties are prepared to
undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply
with their obligations under the treaties.
Austria is further of the view that a general reservation
of the kind made by the Government of the Kingdom of
Annex 8
IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 21
individuals and groups that claim to be victims of
violations of any rights set forth in the Convention.”
SWEDEN
"Sweden recognizes the competence of the Committee
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive
and consider communications from individuals or groups
of individuals within the jurisdiction of Sweden claiming
to be victims of a violation by Sweden of any of the rights
set forth in the Convention, with the reservation that the
Committee shall not consider any communication from an
individual or a group of individuals unless the Committee
has ascertained that the same matter is not being
examined or has not been examined under another
procedure of international investigation or settlement."
SWITZERLAND
... .Switzerland recognizes, pursuant to article 14,
paragraph 1, of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
concluded at New York on 21 December 1965, the
competence of the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination (CERD) to receive and consider
communications under the above-mentioned provision,
with the reservation that the Committee shall not consider
any communication from an individual or group of
individuals unless the Committee has ascertained that the
same matter is not being examined or has not been
examined under another procedure of international
investigation or settlement.
TOGO
Expressing its determination to maintain the rule of
law, to defend and protect human rights and in accordance
with Article 14, the Government the Republic of Togo
declares that it recognizes the competence of the
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination to
receive and consider communications from individuals
within its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation
by the Republic of Togo, of any of the rights set forth in
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination.
UKRAINE
In accordance with the article 14 of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racial
Discrimination, Ukraine declares that it recognizes the
competence of the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination to receive and consider
communications from individuals or groups of individuals
[within its jurisdiction] claiming to be victims of a
violation by [it] of any of the rights set forth in the
Convention.
URUGUAY
The Government of Uruguay recognizes the
competence of the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination, under article 14 of the Convention.
VENEZUELA (BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF)
Pursuant to the provisions of article 14, paragraph 1 of
the International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Government of the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela recognizes the
competence of the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination established under article 8 of the
Convention to receive and consider communications from
individuals or groups of individuals within its jurisdiction
claiming to be victims of violations by the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela of any of the rights set forth in the
Convention.
Notes:
1 Article 19 of the Convention provides that the Convention
shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of deposit
with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the twentyseventh
instrument of ratification or instrument of accession. On
5 December 1968, the Government of Poland deposited the
twenty-seventh instrument. However, among those instruments
there were some which contained a reservation and therefore
were subject to the provisions of article 20 of the Convention
allowing States to notify objections within ninety days from the
date of circulation by the Secretary-General of the reservations.
In respect of two such instruments, namely those of Kuwait and
Spain, the ninety-day period had not yet expired on the date of
deposit of the twenty-seventh instrument. The reservation
contained in one further instrument, that of India, had not yet
been circulated on that date, and the twenty-seventh instrument
itself, that of Poland, contained a reservation; in respect of these
two instruments the ninety-day period would only begin to run
on the date of the Secretary-General's notification of their
deposit. Therefore, in that notification, which was dated 13
December 1968, the Secretary-General called the attention of
the interested States to the situation and stated the following:
"It appears from the provisions of article 20 of the Convention
that it would not be possible to determine the legal effect of the
four instruments in question pending the expiry of the respective
periods of time mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Having regard to the above-mentioned consideration, the
Secretary-General is not at the present time in a position to
ascertain the date of entry into force of the Convention."
Subsequently, in a notification dated 17 March 1969, the
Secretary-General informed the interested States; (a) that within
the period of ninety days from the date of his previous
notification he had received an objection from one State to the
reservation contained in the instrument of ratification by the
Government of India; and (b) that the Convention, in accordance
with paragraph 1 of article 19, had entered into force on 4
January 1969, i.e., on the thirtieth day after the date of deposit of
the instrument of ratification of the Convention by the
Government of Poland, which was the twenty-seventh
instrument of ratification or instrument of accession deposited
with the Secretary-General.
2 Official Records of the General Assembly, Twentieth
Session, Supplement No. 14 (A/6014),p. 47.
3 The German Democratic Republic had acceded to the
Convention on 23 March 1973 with a reservation and a
declaration. For the text of the reservation and declaration, see
United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 883, p. 190.
Moreover, on 26 April 1984, the Government of the German
Democratic Republic had made an objection with regard to the
ratification made by the Government of the Democratic
Annex 8
IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 22
Kampuchea. For the text of the objection, see United Nations,
Treaty Series , vol. 1355, p. 327.
See also note 2 under “Germany” in the “Historical
Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
4 The former Yugoslavia had signed and ratified the
Convention on 15 April 1966 and 2 October 1967, respectively.
See also note 1 under "Bosnia and Herzegovina", "Croatia",
"former Yugoslavia", "Slovenia", "The Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia" and "Yugoslavia" in the "Historical
Information" section (click on the tab "Status of Treaties" and
then on "Historical Information").
5 On 10 June 1997, the Secretary-General received
communications concerning the status of Hong Kong from the
Governments of the United Kingdom and China (see also note 2
under “China” and note 2 under “United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland” regarding Hong Kong in the
“Historical Information” section (click on the tab "Status of
Treaties" and then on "Historical Information"). Upon resuming
the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, China notified the
Secretary-General that the Convention with the reservation
made by China will also apply to the Hong Kong special
Administrative Region.
In addition, the notification made by the Government of China
contained the following declarations:
1. ...
2. The reservation of the People's Republic of China on behalf
of the the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region interprets
the requirement in article 6 concerning "reparation and
satisfaction" as being fulfilled if one or other of these forms of
redress is made available and interprets "satisfaction" as
including any form of redress effective to bring the
discriminatory conduct to an end.
6 The Convention had previously been signed and ratified
on behalf of the Republic of China on 31 March 1966 and 10
December 1970, respectively. See also note 1 under "China" in
the "Historical Information" (click on the tab "Status of
Treaties" and then on "Historical Information").
With reference to the above-mentioned signature and/or
ratification, communications have been received by the
Secretary-General from the Governments of Bulgaria (12 March
1971), Mongolia (11 January 1971), the Byelorussian Soviet
Socialist Republic (9 June 1971), the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic (21 April 1971) and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (18 January 1971) stating that they considered the
said signature and/or ratification as null and void, since the socalled
"Government of China" had no right to speak or assume
obligations on behalf of China, there being only one Chinese
State, the People's Republic of China, and one Government
entitled to represent it, the Government of the People's Republic
of China.
In letters addressed to the Secretary-General in regard to the
above-mentioned communications, the Permanent
Representative of China to the United Nations stated that the
Republic of China, a sovereign State and Member of the United
Nations, had attended the twentieth regular session of the United
Nations General Assembly, contributed to the formulation of the
Convention concerned, signed the Convention and duly
deposited the instrument of ratification thereof, and that "any
statements and reservations relating to the above-mentioned
Convention that are incompatible with or derogatory to the
legitimate position of the Government of the Republic of China
shall in no way affect the rights and obligations of the Republic
of China under this Convention".
Finally, upon depositing its instrument of accession, the
Government of the People's Republic of China made the
following declaration: The signing and ratification of the said
Convention by the Taiwan authorities in the name of China are
illegal and null and void.
7 On 27 April 1999, the Government of Portugal informed
the Secretary-General that the Convention would apply to
Macao.
Subsequently, the Secretary-General received communications
concerning the status of Macao from Portugal and China (see
note 3 under “China” and note 1 under “Portgual” in the
Historical Information section in the front matter of this
volume). Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over
Macao, China notified the Secretary-General that the
Convention with the reservation made by China will also apply
to the Macao Special Administrative Region.
8 The Convention had previously been signed and ratified
on behalf of the Republic of China on 31 March 1966 and 10
December 1970, respectively. See also note 1 under "China" in
the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this
volume.
With reference to the above-mentioned signature and/or
ratification, communications have been received by the
Secretary-General from the Governments of Bulgaria (12 march
1971), Mongolia (11 January 1971), the Byelorussian Soviet
Socialist Republic (9 June 1971), the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic (21 April 1971) and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (18 January 1971) stating that they considered the
said signature and/or ratification as null and void, since the socalled
"Government of China" had no right to speak or assume
obligations on behalf of China, there being only one Chinese
State, the People's Republic of China, and one Government
entitled to represent it, the Government of the People's Republic
of China.
In letters addressed to teh Secretary-General in regard to the
above-mentioned communications, the Permanent
Representative of China to the United Nations stated that the
Republic of China, a sovereign State and Member of the United
Nations, had attended the twentieth regular session of hte United
Nations General Assembly, contributed to the formulation of the
Convention concerned, signed the Convention and duly
deposited the instrument of ratification thereof, and that "any
statements and reservations relating to the abocve-mentioned
Convention that are incmopatible with or derogatory to the
legitimate position of the Government of the Republic of China
shall in no wa affect the rights and obligations of the Republic of
China under this Convention".
Finally, upon depositing its instrument of accession, the
Government of the People's Republic of China made the
following declaration: The signing and ratification of the said
Convention by the Taiwan authorities in the name of China are
illegal and null and void.
Annex 8
IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 23
9 Czechoslovakia had signed and ratified the Convention on
7 October 1966 and 29 December 1966, respectively, with
reservations. Subsequently, on 12 March 1984, the Government
of Czechoslovakia made an objection to the ratification by
Democratic Kampuchea. Further, by a notification received on
26 April 1991, the Government of Czechoslovakia notified the
Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation to
article 22 made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification.
For the text of the reservations and the objection, see United
Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 660, p. 276 and vol. 1350, p. 386,
respectively. See also note 14 in this chapter and note 1 under
“Czech Republic” and note 1 under “Slovakia” in the “Historical
Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
10 In a communication received on 4 October 1972, the
Government of Denmark notified the Secretary-General that it
withdrew the reservation made with regard to the
implementation on the Faroe Islands of the Convention. For the
text of the reservation see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol.
820, p. 457.
The legislation by which the Convention has been
implemented on the Faroe Islands entered into force by 1
November 1972, from which date the withdrawal of the above
reservation became effective.
11 See note 1 under “Germany” regarding Berlin (West) in
the “Historical Information” section (click on the tab "Status of
Treaties" and then on "Historical Information").
12 See note 1 under "Montenegro" in the "Historical
Information" section (click on the tab "Status of Treaties" and
then on "Historical Information").
13 See note 1 under “Namibia” in the “Historical
Information” section (click on the tab "Status of Treaties" and
then on "Historical Information").
14 See note 1 under "New Zealand" regarding Tokelau in the
"Historical Information" section in the preliminary pages in the
front matter of this volume.
15 On 7 October 2016, the Government of Thailand notified
the Secretary-General of the withdrawal of the reservation to
article 4 made upon accession to the Convention. The text of the
reservation read as follows:
"The Kingdom of Thailand interprets Article 4 of the
Convention as requiring a party to the Convention to adopt
measures in the fields covered by subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c)
of that article only where it is considered that the need arises to
enact such legislation."
16 In its instrument of ratification, the Government of the
United Kingdom specified that the ratification also applied to
the following territories: Associated States (Antigua, Dominica,
Grenada, Saint Christopher Nevis Anguilla and Saint Lucia) and
Territories under the territorial sovereignty of the United
Kingdom, as well as the State of Brunei, the Kingdom of Tonga
and the British Solomon Islands Protectorate.
17 The Yemen Arab Republic had acceded to the Convention
on 6 April 1989 with the following reservation:
Reservations in respect of article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv),
(vi) and (vii).
In this regard, the Secretary-General received on 30 April
1990, from the Government of Czechoslovakia the following
objection:
"The Czech and Slovak Federal Republic considers the
reservations of the Government of Yemen with respect to article
5 (c) and articles 5 (d) (iv), (vi), and (vii) of [the Convention],
as incompatible with the object and purpose of this Convention."
See also note 1 under “Yemen” in the “Historical Information”
(click on the tab "Status of Treaties" and then on "Historical
Information").
18 In a communication received by the Secretary-General on
10 July 1969, the Government of Israel declared:
"[The Government of Israel] has noted the political character
of the declaration made by the Government of Iraq on signing
the above Convention.
In the view of the Government of Israel, the Convention is not
the proper place for making such political pronouncements. The
Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of
the matter, adopt towards the Government of Iraq an attitude of
complete reciprocity. Moreover, it is the view of the
Government of Israel that no legal relevance can be attached to
those Iraqi statements which purport to represent the views of
the other States".
Except for the omission of the last sentence, identical
communica- tions in essence, mutatis mutandis , were received
by the Secretary-General from the Government of Israel as
follows: on 29 December 1966 in respect of the declaration
made by the Government of the United Arab Republic upon
signature (see also note 17); on 16 August 1968 in respect of
the declaration made by the Government of Libya upon
accession; on 12 December 1968 in respect of the declaration
made by the Government of Kuwait upon accession; on 9 July
1969 in respect of the declaration made by the Government of
Syria upon accession; on 21 April 1970 made in respect of the
declaration made by Government of Iraq upon ratification with
the following statement: "With regard to the political declaration
in the guise of a reservation made on the occasion of the
ratification of the above Treaty, the Government of Israel wishes
to refer to its objection circulated by the Secretary-General in his
letter [. . .] and to maintain that objection."; on 12 February 1973
in respect of the declaration made by the Government of the
People's Democratic Republic of Yemen upon accession; on 25
September 1974 in respect of the declaration made by the United
Arab Emirates upon accession and on 25 June 1990 in rthe
reservation made by Bahrain upon accession.
19 On 8 July 2021, the Government of Bahrain notified the
Secretary-General of its withdrawal of the following reservation
made upon accession:
"[T]he accession by the State of Bahrain to the said
Convention shall in no way constitute recognition of Israel or be
a cause for the establishment of any relations of any kind
therewith."
20 In communications received on 8 March, 19 and 20 April
1989, the Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Annex 8
IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 24
Republics, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and the
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, respectively, notified the
Secretary-General that they had decided to withdraw the
reservations relating to article 22. For the texts of the
reservations, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 676, p.
397, vol. 81, p. 392 and vol.77, p. 435.
21 On 24 June 1992, the Government of Bulgaria notified the
Secretary-General its decision to withdraw the reservation to
article 22 made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification.
For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty
Series , vol. 60, p. 270.
22 None of the States concerned having objected to the
reservation by the end of a period of ninety days after the date
when it was circulated by the Secretary-General, the said
reservation is deemed to have been permitted in accordance with
the provisions of article 20 (1).
23 In a notification received on 18 January 1980, the
Government of Egypt informed the Secretary-General that it had
decided to withdraw the declaration it had made in respect of
Israel. For the text of the declaration see United Nations, Treaty
Series , vol. 60, p. 318. The notification indicates 25 January
1980 as the effective date of the withdrawal.
24 In a communication received in 10 August 2012, the
Government of Fiji notified the Secretary-General of the
withdrawal of the reservations and declarations made upon
sucession to the Convention. The text of the reservations and
declarations read as follows:
The reservation and declarations formulated by the
Government of the United Kingdom on behalf of Fiji are
affirmed but have been redrafted in the following terms:
"To the extent, if any, that any law relating to elections in Fiji
may not fulfil the obligations referred to in article 5 (c), that any
law relating to land in Fiji which prohibits or restricts the
alienation of land by the indigenous inhabitants may not fulfil
the obligations referred to in article 5 (d) (v), or that the school
system of Fiji may not fulfil the obligations referred to in
articles 2, 3, or 5 (e) (v), the Government of Fiji reserves the
right not to implement the aforementioned provisions of the
Convention.
"The Government of Fiji wishes to state its understanding of
certain articles in the Convention. It interprets article 4 as
requiring a party to the Convention to adopt further legislative
measures in the fields covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)
of that article only in so far as it may consider with due regard to
the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of the
Convention (in particular the right to freedom of opinion and
expression and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association) that some legislative addition to or variation of
existing law and practice in those fields is necessary for the
attainment of the end specified in the earlier part of Article 4.
Further, the Government of Fiji interprets the requirement in
article 6 concerning `reparation or satisfaction' as being fulfilled
if one or other of these forms of redress is made available and
interprets `satisfaction' as including any form of redress
effective to bring the discriminatory conduct to an and. In
addition it interprets article 20 and the other related provisions
of Part III of the Convention as meaning that if a reservation is
not accepted the State making the reservation does not become a
Party to the Convention.
"The Government of Fiji maintains the view that Article 15 is
discriminatory in that it establishes a procedure for the receipt of
petitions relating to dependent territories whilst making no
comparable provision for States without such territories."
25 In a communication received subsequently, the
Government of France indicated that the first paragraph of the
declaration did not purport to limit the obligations under the
Convention in respect of the French Government, but only to
record the latter's interpretation of article 4 of the Convention.
26 The Secretary-General received on 7 August 2013 the
following communication from the Government of the French
Republic:
The Government of the French Republic has examined the
declaration formulated by the Government of Grenada at the
time of the deposit of its instrument of ratification of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination of 7 March 1966. The Government of the
French Republic takes note of this ratification. It regrets,
however, that the declaration made by Grenada, which
constitutes a reservation, gives rise to a restriction on the
international obligations accepted by Grenada under the
Convention and to legal uncertainty. The reservation has indeed
a general and indeterminate scope, since its aim is to subordinate
the implementation of Grenada’s obligations under the
Convention to respect for its domestic law, with no indication of
which provisions are concerned. The States Parties to the
Convention cannot, therefore, assess the scope of the
reservation. By the present declaration, however, the
Government of the French Republic does not oppose Grenada
becoming a party to the Convention.
27 In a communication received on 13 September 1989, the
Government of Hungary notified the Secretary-General that it
had decided to withdraw the reservation in respect to article 22
of the Convention made upon ratification. For the text of the
reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 60, p. 310.
28 In a communication received on 24 February 1969, the
Government of Pakistan notified the Secretary-General that it
"has decided not to accept the reservation made by the
Government of India in her instrument of ratification".
29 In a communication received on 19 July 1990, the
Government of Mongolia notified the Secretary-General of its
decision to withdraw the reservation concerning article 22 made
upon ratification. For the text of the reservation see United
Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 60, p. 289.
30 On 16 October 1997, the Government of Poland notified
the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its
reservation with regard to article 22 of the Convention made
Annex 8
IV 2. HUMAN RIGHTS 25
upon ratification. For the text of the reservation see United
Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 660, p. 195.
31 On 19 August 1998, the Government of Romania notified
the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its
reservation made with regard to article 22 of the Convention
made upon accession. For the text of the reservation, see United
Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 763, p. 362.
32 In a communication received in 15 December 2008, the
Government of Rwanda notified the Secretary-General of the
withdrawal of the reservation made upon accession to the
Convention. The text of the reservation reads as follows:
The Rwandese Republic does not consider itself as bound by
article 22 of the Convention.
33 On 22 October 1999, the Government of Spain informed
the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its
reservation in respect of article XXII made upon accession. For
the texte of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series ,
vol. 660, p. 316.
34 By a notification received on 28 October 1977, the
Government of Tonga informed the Secretary-General that it has
decided to withdraw only those reservations made upon
accession relating to article 5 (c) in so far as it relates to
elections, and reservations relating to articles 2, 3 and 5 (e) (v),
in so far as these articles relate to education and training. For the
text of the original reservation see United Nations, Treaty
Series , vol. 829, p. 371.
35 The first ten declarations recognizing the competence of
the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination took
effect on 3 December 1982, date of the deposit of the tenth
declaration, according to article 14, paragraph 1 of the
Convention.
Annex 8
Annex 9
International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States
for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries,
Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2001
(excerpt)
State responsibility 5
He claimed that he had not had a fair hearing, contrary
to article 6, paragraph 1, of the European Convention on
Human Rights. The Court noted that:
The Contracting States enjoy a wide discretion as regards the choice of
the means calculated to ensure that their legal systems are in compliance
with the requirements of article 6 § 1 in this field. The Court’s task
is not to indicate those means to the States, but to determine whether
the result called for by the Convention has been achieved ... For this to
be so, the resources available under domestic law must be shown to be
effective and a person “charged with a criminal offence” ... must not be
left with the burden of proving that he was not seeking to evade justice
or that his absence was due to force majeure. 10
The Court thus considered that article 6, paragraph 1,
imposed an obligation of result.211 But, in order to decide
whether there had been a breach of the Convention
in the circumstances of the case, it did not simply compare
the result required (the opportunity for a trial in the
accused’s presence) with the result practically achieved
(the lack of that opportunity in the particular case). Rather,
it examined what more Italy could have done to make the
applicant’s right “effective”.212 The distinction between
obligations of conduct and result was not determinative
of the actual decision that there had been a breach of article
6, paragraph 1.213
(12) The question often arises whether an obligation is
breached by the enactment of legislation by a State, in
cases where the content of the legislation prima facie conflicts
with what is required by the international obligation,
or whether the legislation has to be implemented in the
given case before the breach can be said to have occurred.
Again, no general rule can be laid down that is applicable
to all cases.214 Certain obligations may be breached by the
mere passage of incompatible legislation.215 Where this
is so, the passage of the legislation without more entails
the international responsibility of the enacting State, the
10 Colozza v. Italy, Eur. Court H.R., Series A, No. 89 (1985),
pp. 15–16, para. 30, citing De Cubber v. Belgium, ibid., No. 86 (1984),
p. 20, para. 35.
11 Cf. Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v. Austria, in which the
Court gave the following interpretation of article 11:
“While it is the duty of Contracting States to take reasonable and
appropriate measures to enable lawful demonstrations to proceed
peacefully, they cannot guarantee this absolutely and they have a
wide discretion in the choice of the means to be used … In this area
the obligation they enter into under article 11 of the Convention
is an obligation as to measures to be taken and not as to results to
be achieved” (Eur. Court H.R., Series A, No. 139, p. 12, para. 34
(1988)).
In the Colozza case (see footnote 210 above), the Court used similar
language but concluded that the obligation was an obligation of result.
Cf. C. Tomuschat, “What is a ‘breach’ of the European Convention on
Human Rights?”, The Dynamics of the Protection of Human Rights
in Europe: Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, Lawson and
de Blois, eds. (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff, 1994), vol. 3, p. 315, at
p. 328.
1 Colozza case (see footnote 210 above), para. 28.
1 See also The Islamic Republic of Iran v. The United States of
America, cases A15 (IV) and A24, Iran-U.S. C.T.R., vol. 32, p. 115
(1996).
1 Cf. Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21
of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947 (footnote
83 above), p. 30, para. 42.
1 A uniform law treaty will generally be construed as requiring immediate
implementation, i.e. as embodying an obligation to make the
provisions of the uniform law a part of the law of each State party:
see, e.g., B. Conforti, “Obblighi di mezzi e obblighi di risultato nelle
convenzioni di diritto uniforme”, Rivista di diritto internazionale
privato e processuale, vol. 24 (1988), p. 233.
legislature itself being an organ of the State for the purposes
of the attribution of responsibility.216 In other circumstances,
the enactment of legislation may not in and
of itself amount to a breach,217 especially if it is open to
the State concerned to give effect to the legislation in a
way which would not violate the international obligation
in question. In such cases, whether there is a breach will
depend on whether and how the legislation is given effect.
218
Article 13. International obligation in force for a State
An act of a State does not constitute a breach of an
international obligation unless the State is bound by
the obligation in question at the time the act occurs.
Commentary
(1) Article 13 states the basic principle that, for responsibility
to exist, the breach must occur at a time when the
State is bound by the obligation. This is but the application
in the field of State responsibility of the general principle
of intertemporal law, as stated by Judge Huber in another
context in the Island of Palmas case:
[A] juridical fact must be appreciated in the light of the law contemporary
with it, and not of the law in force at the time when a dispute in
regard to it arises or falls to be settled. 19
Article 13 provides an important guarantee for States in
terms of claims of responsibility. Its formulation (“does
not constitute … unless …”) is in keeping with the idea of
a guarantee against the retrospective application of international
law in matters of State responsibility.
(2) International tribunals have applied the principle
stated in article 13 in many cases. An instructive example
is provided by the decision of Umpire Bates of the United
States-Great Britain Mixed Commission concerning the
16 See article 4 and commentary. For illustrations, see, e.g., the
findings of the European Court of Human Rights in Norris v. Ireland,
Eur. Court H.R., Series A, No. 142, para. 31 (1988), citing Klass and
Others v. Germany, ibid., No. 28, para. 33 (1978); Marckx v. Belgium,
ibid., No. 31, para. 27 (1979); Johnston and Others v. Ireland,
ibid., No. 112, para. 42 (1986); Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, ibid.,
No. 45, para. 41 (1981); and Modinos v. Cyprus, ibid., No. 259, para.
24 (1993). See also International responsibility for the promulgation
and enforcement of laws in violation of the Convention (arts. 1 and 2
American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC–14/94,
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series A, No. 14 (1994).
The Inter-American Court also considered it possible to determine
whether draft legislation was compatible with the provisions of human
rights treaties: Restrictions to the Death Penalty (arts. 4(2) and 4(4)
American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC–3/83,
Series A, No. 3 (1983).
1 As ICJ held in LaGrand, Judgment (see footnote 119 above),
p. 497, paras. 90–91.
1 See, e.g., WTO, Report of the Panel (footnote 73 above),
paras. 7.34–7.57.
19 Island of Palmas (Netherlands/United States of America),
UNRIAA, vol. II (Sales No. 1949.V.1), p. 829, at p. 845 (1928).
Generally on intertemporal law, see resolution I adopted in 1975 by
the Institute of International Law at its Wiesbaden session, Annuaire
de l’Institut de droit international, vol. 56 (1975), pp. 536–540; for
the debate, ibid., pp. 339–374; for M. Sørensen’s reports, ibid., vol. 55
(1973), pp. 1–116. See further W. Karl, “The time factor in the law of
State responsibility”, Spinedi and Simma, eds., op. cit. (footnote 175
above), p. 95.
Annex 9
Annex 10
UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous People, UN Doc. A/RES/61/295 (13 September 2007)
(excerpt)
Annex 10
Annex 11
International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of
Crimes against Humanity, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2019
(excerpt)
9
(b) taking evidence or statements from persons, including by video
conference;
(c) effecting service of judicial documents;
(d) executing searches and seizures;
(e) examining objects and sites, including obtaining forensic evidence;
(f) providing information, evidentiary items and expert evaluations;
(g) providing originals or certified copies of relevant documents and
records;
(h) identifying, tracing or freezing proceeds of crime, property,
instrumentalities or other things for evidentiary or other purposes;
(i) facilitating the voluntary appearance of persons in the requesting State;
or
(j) any other type of assistance that is not contrary to the national law of
the requested State.
4. States shall not decline to render mutual legal assistance pursuant to this draft
article on the ground of bank secrecy.
5. States shall consider, as may be necessary, the possibility of concluding bilateral
or multilateral agreements or arrangements that would serve the purposes of, give
practical effect to, or enhance the provisions of this draft article.
6. Without prejudice to its national law, the competent authorities of a State may,
without prior request, transmit information relating to crimes against humanity to a
competent authority in another State where they believe that such information could
assist the authority in undertaking or successfully concluding investigations, prosecutions
and judicial proceedings or could result in a request formulated by the latter State
pursuant to the present draft articles.
7. The provisions of this draft article shall not affect the obligations under any
other treaty, bilateral or multilateral, that governs or will govern, in whole or in part,
mutual legal assistance between the States in question.
8. The draft annex to the present draft articles shall apply to requests made
pursuant to this draft article if the States in question are not bound by a treaty of mutual
legal assistance. If those States are bound by such a treaty, the corresponding provisions
of that treaty shall apply, unless the States agree to apply the provisions of the draft annex
in lieu thereof. States are encouraged to apply the draft annex if it facilitates cooperation.
9. States shall consider, as appropriate, entering into agreements or arrangements
with international mechanisms that are established by the United Nations or by other
international organizations and that have a mandate to collect evidence with respect to
crimes against humanity.
Article 15
Settlement of disputes
1. States shall endeavour to settle disputes concerning the interpretation or
application of the present draft articles through negotiations.
2. Any dispute between two or more States concerning the interpretation or
application of the present draft articles that is not settled through negotiation shall, at the
request of one of those States, be submitted to the International Court of Justice, unless
those States agree to submit the dispute to arbitration.
Annex 11
10
3. Each State may declare that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 2 of
this draft article. The other States shall not be bound by paragraph 2 of this draft article
with respect to any State that has made such a declaration.
4. Any State that has made a declaration in accordance with paragraph 3 of this
draft article may at any time withdraw that declaration.
Annex
1. This draft annex applies in accordance with draft article 14, paragraph 8.
Designation of a central authority
2. Each State shall designate a central authority that shall have the responsibility
and power to receive requests for mutual legal assistance and either to execute them or to
transmit them to the competent authorities for execution. Where a State has a special
region or territory with a separate system of mutual legal assistance, it may designate a
distinct central authority that shall have the same function for that region or territory.
Central authorities shall ensure the speedy and proper execution or transmission of the
requests received. Where the central authority transmits the request to a competent
authority for execution, it shall encourage the speedy and proper execution of the request
by the competent authority. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall be notified
by each State of the central authority designated for this purpose. Requests for mutual
legal assistance and any communication related thereto shall be transmitted to the central
authorities designated by the States. This requirement shall be without prejudice to the
right of a State to require that such requests and communications be addressed to it
through diplomatic channels and, in urgent circumstances, where the States agree,
through the International Criminal Police Organization, if possible.
Procedures for making a request
3. Requests shall be made in writing or, where possible, by any means capable of
producing a written record, in a language acceptable to the requested State, under
conditions allowing that State to establish authenticity. The Secretary-General of the
United Nations shall be notified by each State of the language or languages acceptable to
that State. In urgent circumstances and where agreed by the States, requests may be made
orally, but shall be confirmed in writing forthwith.
4. A request for mutual legal assistance shall contain:
(a) the identity of the authority making the request;
(b) the subject matter and nature of the investigation, prosecution or
judicial proceeding to which the request relates and the name and functions of the
authority conducting the investigation, prosecution or judicial proceeding;
(c) a summary of the relevant facts, except in relation to requests for the
purpose of service of judicial documents;
(d) a description of the assistance sought and details of any particular
procedure that the requesting State wishes to be followed;
(e) where possible, the identity, location and nationality of any person
concerned; and
(f) the purpose for which the evidence, information or action is sought.
5. The requested State may request additional information when it appears
necessary for the execution of the request in accordance with its national law or when it
can facilitate such execution.
Annex 11
Annex 12
Ad Hoc Report of the Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsman) of
the Republic of Azerbaijan, Mine Problem in the Liberated Areas (June 2021),
available at https://www.ombudsman.az/upload/editor/files/Ad%20Hoc%20Report
%20of%20the%20Ombudsman%20on%20landmine%20problem.pdf
(excerpt)
Annex 12
Annex 12
Annex 13
Annex not reproduced
Annex 14
Annex not reproduced
Annex 15
Azerbaijan’s Allegations Concerning Landmines and Booby Traps (April 2023)
Allegations Concerning Landmines and Booby Traps That Were
Made in Previous Submissions and Are Merely Restated in
Azerbaijan’s Memorial
Allegations Regarding
Landmines and/or Booby Traps
in Azerbaijan’s Memorial that
Had Already Been Made in
Previous Submissions
“Evidence” Recycled from
Previous Submissions
Additional “Evidence”
Cited in the Memorial in
Support of Allegations
Armenia planted mines in Xanlıq,
Şatarız, and Güləbird (Memorial,
para. 277)
Annex 32 to Azerbaijan’s
First PM Request
Annex 36 to Azerbaijan’s
First PM Request
NONE
Armenia planted landmines after
the 2020 Trilateral Statement
(Memorial, para. 278) -- NONE
Armenia planted landmines in the
town of Lachin and adjacent
villages in August 2022
(Memorial, para. 278)
Annex 7 to Azerbaijan’s
Second PM Request
Annex 9 to Azerbaijan’s
Second PM Request
Annex 5 to Azerbaijan’s
Second PM Request
Annex 10 to Azerbaijan’s
Second PM Request
Annex 11 to Azerbaijan’s
Second PM Request
NONE
Armenia planted landmines from
August to November 2022 in the
villages of Ikinji Ipak, Birinji Ipak
and Baghlipaya (Memorial, para.
279)
Annex 7 to Azerbaijan’s
Second PM Request
Annex 9 to Azerbaijan’s
Second PM Request
Annex 13 to Azerbaijan’s
Second PM Request
Annex 14 of Azerbaijan’s
Second PM Request
NONE
Azerbaijan discovered Armenianproduced
landmines manufactured
in 2021 in parts of Kalbajar and
Lachin (Memorial, para. 280)
Annex 7 to Azerbaijan’s
Second PM Request
Annex 8 to Azerbaijan’s
Second PM Request
Annex 10 to Azerbaijan’s
Second PM Request
NONE
Annex 15
Allegations Regarding
Landmines and/or Booby Traps
in Azerbaijan’s Memorial that
Had Already Been Made in
Previous Submissions
“Evidence” Recycled from
Previous Submissions
Additional “Evidence”
Cited in the Memorial in
Support of Allegations
Annex 11 to Azerbaijan’s
Second PM Request
Armenian forces and departing
settlers planted booby traps in
Lachin town, Zabukh and Sus
(Memorial, para. 281)
Annex 10 to Azerbaijan’s
Second PM Request
Annex 8 to Azerbaijan’s
Second PM Request
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of the Republic of
Azerbaijan, Press release
No: 493/22 on ongoing
threats as a result of
planting of landmines in
the territories of
Azerbaijan by Armenia (25
October 2022) (Not
submitted as an Annex;
also cited in fn. 35 of
Azerbaijan’s Second PM
Request)
NONE
Azerbaijan’s planned return of
IDPs and the cost of doing so
(Memorial para. 274)
Exhibit 8 to Letter dated
22 September 2022 from
Elnur Mammadov, Deputy
Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the Republic of
Azerbaijan, to H.E. Mr.
Philippe Gautier, Registrar
of the International Court
of Justice (identical to
Annex 13 to Azerbaijan’s
Second PM Request)
President of the
Republic of Azerbaijan
Ilham Aliyev, Ilham
Aliyev takes part in
plenary session of 6th
Summit of Conference
on Interaction and
Confidence Building
Measures in Asia in
Astana (13 October
2022) (Not submitted
as an Annex)
Armenia hindered demining
efforts by refusing to provide
complete maps (Memorial, para.
275)
Letter dated 9 August 2021
from the Permanent
Representative of
Azerbaijan to the United
Nations addressed to the
Secretary-General (Not
submitted as an Annex;
also cited in fn. 12 of
Azerbaijan’s First PM
Request)
Annex 45 to
Azerbaijan’s Memorial
(nearly identical to
Annex 33 to
Azerbaijan’s First PM
Request)
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of the Republic
of Azerbaijan, Press
Release No: 217/21,
Information of the
Annex 15
Allegations Regarding
Landmines and/or Booby Traps
in Azerbaijan’s Memorial that
Had Already Been Made in
Previous Submissions
“Evidence” Recycled from
Previous Submissions
Additional “Evidence”
Cited in the Memorial in
Support of Allegations
Press Service
Department of the
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of the Republic
of Azerbaijan (12 June
2021) (Not submitted
as an Annex)
“Yerevan transfers only
a fraction of minefield
maps to Baku, says
Pashinyan”, Tass (13
June 2021) (Not
submitted as an
Annex)
Armenia’s landmines and booby
traps prevent Azerbaijanis from
returning to the liberated
territories (Memorial, para. 282) --
Annex 8 to
Azerbaijan’s Memorial
PACE Committee on
Migration, Refugees
and Displaced Persons,
Explanatory
memorandum by Mr.
Paul Gavan,
rapporteur (13
September 2021) (Not
submitted as an
Annex)
Armenia’s landmines have
impacted civilians (Memorial,
para. 283)
Annex 8 to Azerbaijan’s
Second PM Request
Annex 11 to Azerbaijan’s
Second PM Request
Annex 22 to
Azerbaijan’s Memorial
Annex 25 to
Azerbaijan’s Memorial
Annex 15
Allegations Concerning Landmines and Booby Traps That Were Made for
the First Time in Azerbaijan’s Memorial
New Allegations Regarding
Landmines and/or Booby
Traps in Azerbaijan’s
Memorial
Evidence Recycled from
Previous Submissions
“Evidence” Cited in the
Memorial in Support of
Allegations
Armenia planted landmines and
booby traps in Kalbajar district
in 1993 (Memorial, paras. 116,
276)
--
Annex 113 to
Azerbaijan’s Memorial
Armenia seeded the line of
contact with landmines
(Memorial, para. 223)
Annex 32 to Azerbaijan’s
Application
Independent Permanent
Human Rights
Commission (IPHRC)
of The Organisation of
Islamic Cooperation
(OIC), Report of the
OIC-PHRC Fact
Finding Visit to the
Territories Previously
Occupied by Armenia
top Assess Human
Rights & Humanitarian
Situation, 22-26
September 2021 (14
November 2021) (Not
submitted as an
Annex)
Armenia provided inaccurate
maps (Memorial, para. 275) --
Annex 22 to
Azerbaijan’s Memorial
Annex 34 to
Azerbaijan’s Memorial
Annex 15
Annex 16
“Water Politics Anger Armenia”, Institute for War & Peace
Reporting (22 February 2016), available at
https://iwpr.net/global-voices/water-politics-angers-armenia
Annex 16
Annex 16
Annex 16
Annex 16
Annex 16
Annex 17
“Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: Landmines, a disturbing reminder of war”,
ICRC (31 May 2019), available at
https://www.icrc.org/en/document/nagorno-karabakh-conflictlandmines-
disturbing-reminder-war
Annex 17
Annex 17
Annex 17
Annex 17
Annex 17
Annex 17
Annex 17
Annex 17
Annex 17
Annex 18
“Water Security and the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict”, Planetary Security Initiative
(4 October 2022), available at
https://www.planetarysecurityinitiative.org/news/water-security-and-nagornokarabakh-
conflict
Annex 18
Annex 18
Annex 18
Annex 18
Annex 19
“Azerbaijan: Blockade of Lachin corridor putting thousands of lives in peril
must be immediately lifted”, Amnesty International (9 February 2023), available at
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/02/azerbaijan-blockade-of-lachincorridor-
putting-thousands-of-lives-in-peril-must-be-immediately-lifted/
1
Annex 19
2
Annex 19
3
Annex 19
4
Annex 19
5
Annex 19
6
Annex 19
7
Annex 19
8
Annex 19
9
Annex 19
Annex 20
R. Kolb, “The Compromissory Clause of the Convention” in The UN Genocide
Convention: A Commentary (P. Gaeta ed., 2009)
(excerpt)
Annex 20
Annex 21
E. David, “Treaties and Third States, Art. 34 1969 Vienna Convention”
in The Vienna Convetion on the Law of Treaties (O. Corten & P. Klein, eds., 2011)
(excerpt)
From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2023. All Rights Reserved.
Subscriber: Foley Hoag LLP; date: 05 April 2023
(p. 887) 1969 Vienna Convention
Article 34
General rule regarding third States
A treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third State without its
consent.
A. General characteristics 887
Object 887
Customary status 888
B. Interpretation of the Article 890
The notion of treaty 890
The notion of ‘rights’ and ‘obligations’ 892
The third State 895
Consent 896
Bibliography
Simma, B., ‘From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law’, RCADI,
1994-VI, vol. 250, pp 217–384
Smets, P.-F., Les effets des traités internationaux à l'égard des tiers, Université de
Paris, Institut des hautes études internationales, 1965–66
Tomuschat, Ch., ‘Obligations Arising for States without or against their Will’, RCADI,
1993-IV, vol. 241, pp 195–374
Weil, P., ‘Vers une normativité relative en droit international?’, RGDIP, 1982, pp 5–47
A. General characteristics1
Object
1. Article 34 of the Vienna Convention enunciates the classic principle of the relative effect
of treaties, namely, that a treaty only creates rights and obligations for the States that are
parties to it. However, according to the principle pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt, third
States still maintain a res inter alios acta. 2 Although within municipal legal orders3 the rule
expresses a classic principle of the law of contracts, in international (p. 888) law it is based
on the sovereignty and independence of States,as remarked by the Permanent Court of
International Justice (PCIJ) in the case Status of Eastern Carelia.In that case, it was
decided that Russia did not have to submit to the dispute resolution regime of the Covenant
of the League of Nations unless it had accepted it. For the Court:
This rule, moreover, only accept[ed] and applie[d] a principle which [was] a
fundamental principle of international law, namely, the principle of the
independence of States.In other words, the relativity of treaties is only an expression of voluntarism in international
law, and more specifically, of the fact that ‘The rules of law binding upon States…emanante
from their own free will’.The application of the principle of the relative effect of treaties is
also an expression of the overall relativity of international law, notably of custom8 or judicial
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
Annex 21
From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2023. All Rights Reserved.
Subscriber: Foley Hoag LLP; date: 05 April 2023
decisions (relative binding force of res judicata) (Statute of the Internationa Court of Justice
(ICJ), Art. 59).9
2. The Vienna Convention refers to the principle of relativity in various parts of the text,
notably regarding acceptance of reservations (Art. 20, para. 4), successive treaties (Art. 30,
para. 4), and amendment and modification of treaties (Art. 40, para. 4; Art. 41). Obviously,
such relativity does not create an obstacle to the enforcement of a treaty rule against a
third State as a customary rule, which in any case does not constitute an exception to the
principle of relativity of treaties.10
3. States parties to a treaty may ‘reinforce’ its relativity; for example, the Convention (IV)
of The Hague of 18 October 1907 on the laws and customs of war on land contains a si
omnes clause in its second Article, according to which the Convention does not apply
‘except between Contracting powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the
Convention’.11
Customary status
4. The customary character of the rule is not in doubt. International jurisprudence often
refers to it. Some examples, among many others, are:12
• The arbitral award rendered in the Island of Palmas case (4 April 1928): ‘It is
evident that whatever may be the right construction of a treaty, it cannot be
interpreted as disposing of the rights of independent third Powers’. 13
• The arbitral award of the France/Mexico Claims Commission in the Pablo Nájera
case (19 October 1928): ‘There is no doubt that Article 18 [of the Covenant of the
League (p. 889) of Nations] is irrelevant for conventions concluded between two
States not members of the League…’. 14
• The judgment of the PCIJ in the case Certain German Interests in Polish Upper
Silesia (25 May 1926): ‘A treaty only creates law as between the States which are
parties to it; in case of doubt, no rights can be deduced from it in favour of third
States’. 15
• The judgment of the PCIJ in the case Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of
Gex (7 June 1932). For the Court, Article 435 of the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 ‘is not
binding upon Switzerland, who is not a Party to that Treaty, except to the extent to
which that country accepted it’. 16
• The judgment of the ICJ in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company case (22 July 1952): ‘A
third-party treaty, independent of and isolated from the basic treaty, cannot produce
any legal effect as between the United Kingdom and Iran: it is res inter alios acta’. 17
• The judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the Brita case (25 February
2010), which relied on Article 34, observed that:
even though the Vienna Convention does not bind either the Community or all
its Member States, a series of provisions in that convention reflect the rules of
customary international law which, as such, are binding upon the Community
institutions and form part of the Community legal order…
• In its commentary, the ILC declared: ‘There is abundant evidence of the recognition
of the rule in State practice and in the decisions of international tribunals, as well as
in the writings of jurists’. 18
Annex 21
Annex 22
M. Shaw, Rosenne’s Law and Pratice of the International Court:
1920-2015 (2016)
(excerpt)
Annex 22
Annex 22
Annex 22
Annex 22
Annex 22
Annex 22
Annex 22
Annex 22
Annex 22
Annex 22
Annex 22
Annex 22
Annex 22
Annex 22
Annex 23
C. Tomuschat, “Article 36” in The Statute of the International Court of Justice:
A Commentary (A. Zimmermann & C. Tams, eds., 2019)
(excerpt)
From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2023. All Rights Reserved.
Subscriber: Foley Hoag LLP; date: 05 April 2023
automatically flow from the breach of a jus cogens rule.104
On the other hand, in the
genocide case brought by Croatia against Serbia the ICJ confirmed explicitly that neither
the invocation of an erga omnes obligation nor of a jus cogens rule could affect its
jurisdiction.105
Unfortunately, the Court is absolutely right in this finding. If any
infringement of jus cogens or erga omnes rules provided access to the Court, any armed
conflict could be submitted to adjudication inasmuch as the principle of non-use of force is
deemed to belong to that class of legal norms. This would overstretch the capacities of the
Court. To date, the ‘constitutionalisation’ of public international law has not reached a point
where it is generally acknowledged that at least the most basic principles upon which the
legal order is found would be automatically enforceable by judicial means.(p. 734) 27 Hence it is also perfectly permissible to enter a reservation to a compromissory
clause or to restrict the scope of a unilateral declaration of acceptance of the jurisdiction of
the Court with regard to activities which openly contradict, or in any event are susceptible
of contradicting, jus cogens or erga omnes rules.Excluding a judicial remedy does not, in
principle, affect the substantive rule as such. The special authority of jus cogens norms
does not also encompass secondary rules relating to procedure.It is precisely with
regard to such eventualities that States wish to be free to choose the best-suited method of
peaceful settlement. The legitimacy of this concern cannot be denied. Indeed, it would be
difficult to argue that, with regard to instances of armed conflict, settlement by judicial
pronouncement is the most appropriate course. Generally, judges are unable to deal
successfully with entire periods of history, given the procedural meticulousness they are
required to apply in identifying and appraising the relevant facts. It is significant in this
regard that the relevant instruments of international humanitarian law do not contain any
compromissory clauses.
XI. Reciprocity
28 The term ‘reciprocity’ appears solely in Article 36, para. 3, but it permeates the
provision on the jurisdiction of the Court in its entirety.Whenever a compromissory
clause is contained in an international agreement (‘treaties and conventions in force’) in
accordance with Article 36, para. 1, it applies obviously to all the parties concerned in a like
manner, provided that the parties have not opted for a different formula. Thus,
compromissory clauses ensure equality with regard to access to the Court (principle of
‘mutuality’). Alternatively, if States make a unilateral declaration pursuant to Article 36,
para. 2, that declaration extends its effects to ‘any other state accepting the same
obligation’. In other words, such declarations may only be invoked by States that on their
part have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court (‘consensual bond’). If it were otherwise, if
any State could ad hoc institute proceedings against States subject to the jurisdiction of the
Court, the so-called sitting duck phenomenon would be produced: those States having made
a declaration under Article 36, para. 2 would remain unprotected. They would not reap any
benefit from their willingness to support the rule of law in international relations.
Reciprocity is a device suitable to entice them to make use of the optional clause. By
submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court, they not only become possible targets of
applications directed against them but also they acquire at the same time the right to sue
all of those States which have also chosen to entrust their legal disputes to judicial
settlement by the Court.29 Reciprocity governs not only the relationship ratione personae between the different
States concerned (‘mutuality’), but determines also the scope ratione materiae of the (p.
735) jurisdiction of the Court. This is self-evident in that under Article 36, para. 1 States
subscribe to the same compromissory clause. As far as unilateral declarations according to
Article 36, para. 2 are concerned, there is of course no guarantee that they all cover the
same ground, given that Article 36, para. 3 explicitly permits reservations. To submit to the
jurisdiction of the Court, to keep aloof from it, or to embark on a middle course by
modifying the declaration through reservations belongs to the sovereign rights of every
106
107
108
109
110
Annex 23
From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2023. All Rights Reserved.
Subscriber: Foley Hoag LLP; date: 05 April 2023
State. However, in order to maintain a condition of equality among all of the parties having
accepted the optional clause, it is necessary also to apply the principle of reciprocity as
regards subject-matter. The jurisdiction of the Court exists only to the extent that the
commitments of the two sides coincide.111
This means that the lowest common denominator
is the determining parameter. On the other hand, the exact wording of the relevant
declarations does not matter; they only need to match one another regarding their
substantive scope. Reciprocity furthermore entails an entitlement for each of the litigant
parties to invoke not only its own reservations but also the reservations entered by its
opponent. Thus, in the Norwegian Loans case,Norway relied on the French declaration
of acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court which, following the US declaration with the
famous Connally Reservation, read as follows: ‘The declaration does not apply to differences
relating to matters which are essentially within the national jurisdiction as understood by
the Government of the French Republic.’On that ground, the Court had to dismiss the
French application.
Another famous example is provided by the time clause Yugoslavia inserted in its
declaration of acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court of 26 April 1999. By excluding all
disputes that had arisen before that date, it forwent the right to bring to the cognizance of
the Court the air attacks by NATO States on its territory in the Kosovo conflict, since those
bombings had started on 24 March 1999 and were considered by the Court to constitute a
unity that could not be dissected into different conflicts on a daily basis.In the Whaling
in the Antarctic case, Japan denied the jurisdiction of the ICJ on the basis of the reservation
Australia had appended to its declaration under Article 36, para. 2, eventually without
success as Australia’s reservation was related to delimitation issues and whaling was
considered a matter of a different nature.In other words, reciprocity pervades Article 36
as a whole, although with some limitations.It is not relevant only for para. 3. Indeed,
reciprocity ensures fairness relating to the conditions of access and subjection to the Court.
It may thus be viewed as a particularization of Article 2, para. 1 UN Charter, reflecting also
the requirement of good faith which is enshrined in Article 2, para. 2 UN Charter.
(p. 736) XII. Issues to be Raised ex officio or proprio motu by the
Court
30 Jurisdiction belongs to the issues which the Court must examine ex officio or proprio
motu. It cannot entertain the merits of a case brought before it without having determined
that it is entitled to do so.Certainly, a respondent State is free implicitly to accept the
jurisdiction of the Court, even if the relevant application has not been able to identify any
title of jurisdiction, by answering the application and the supporting memorial without
raising any preliminary objections (forum prorogatum, Article 38, para. 5 of the Rules).
Moreover, if a State deliberately refrains from asserting a jurisdictional defence, as did the
United States in the Nicaragua case, where it deliberately abstained from invoking the
Connally reservation in order not to suffer a severe defeat (as it is hardly a plausible
argument that the violation of Nicaraguan territory would come under the domestic
jurisdiction of the United States),there is no ground for the Court to step in as ‘guardian’
of the respondent. However, as soon as the respondent party objects to its jurisdiction, the
Court must ascertain whether it is in fact entitled to rule on the substance of the requests
before it.119
Thus, for instance, in the Tehran Hostages case, the Court examined on its own
initiative whether the fact that the United States had referred its dispute with Iran to the
Security Council affected in any manner its right to discharge its judicial functions120—
which it found not to be the case.121
In the Legality of Use of Force cases, the Court
originally made the time clause in the Yugoslav declaration of acceptance the pivotal issue,
concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to indicate provisional measures,although at least
one of the respondents (Belgium)had not invoked that clause as an obstacle barring
Yugoslavia’s request.Furthermore, in the same case the Court has clarified that in a
given proceeding the parties are not entitled retroactively to make determinations on the
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
120
122
123
124
Annex 23
Annex 24
J. Kucera, “For Armenians, they’re not occupied territories – they’re the homeland”,
Eurasianet (6 August 2018), available at
https://eurasianet.org/for-armenians-theyre-not-occupied-territories-theyre-the-homeland
(excerpt)
Annex 24
Annex 25
“Land Mine Kills Officer as Search Continues for Armenian, Azerbaijani Missing”,
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (23 November 2020), available at
https://www.rferl.org/a/land-mine-kills-officer-search-for-armenianazerbaijanimissing/
30965287.html
1
Annex 25
2
Annex 25
3
Annex 25
4
Annex 25
5
Annex 25
Annex 26
“Sarsang Reservoir resources reduced, Azerbaijan farmers will have no irrigation water”,
News.am (27 February 2023), available at https://news.am/eng/news/747156.html
1
Annex 26
2
Annex 26
3
Annex 26
Annex 27
“Sarsang water levels drop at alarming rate amid blockade, farmers in both
Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan to be affected”, Artsakh News
(17 March 2023), available at https://artsakh.news/en/news/262005
Annex 27
Annex 28
Artak Beglaryan, Facebook (4 April 2023), available at
https://www.facebook.com/Artak.A.Beglaryan/posts/6344191602285690
Annex 28
Annex 28
Annex 28
Annex 28
Annex 28
Annex 29
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Inhabitants of frontier regions of
Azerbaijan are deliberately deprived of water (12 December 2015),
available at https://pace.coe.int/en/files/22290
(excerpt)
4
Annex 29
5
Annex 29
Annex 30
Office of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, Declaration on State Independence
of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic (6 January 1992), available at
http://www.nkrusa.org/nk_conflict/declaration_independence.shtml
1
Annex 30
2
Annex 30
3
Annex 30
Annex 31
Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, De Jure Population (Urban, Rural)
by Age and Ethnicity (2002), available at http://census.stat-nkr.am/nkr/5-1.pdf
(excerpt)
Annex 31
Annex 32
Constitution of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic (2006), available at
http://www.nkrusa.org/country_profile/constitution.shtml
(excerpt)
1
Annex 32
2
Annex 32
Annex 33
Constitution of the Republic of Artsakh (2017), available at
http://president.nkr.am/media/documents/constitution/Constitution-eng2017.pdf
(excerpt)
Annex 33
Volume II - Annexes