Declaration of intervention of Slovakia

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION
OF THE SLOV AK REPUBLIC
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 63 OF THE STATUTE
OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
1 December 2022
in the case of
ALLEGATIONS OF GENOCIDE UND ER THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION
AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
(UKRAINE V. RUSSIAN FEDERATION)
To the Registrar of the International Court of Justice, the undersigned being duly authorised
by the Slovak Republic ("Slovakia"):
l. On behalf of Slovakia, I have the honour to submit to the Court a Declaration of
Intervention ("Declaration") pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the
Court ("Statute") in the case concerning Allegations ofGenocide under the Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime ofGenocide (Ukraine v. Russian
Federation).
2. Article 82, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Procedure of the Court ("Rules") provides that a
declaration of a State's desire to avail itself of the right of intervention conferred upon it
by Article 63 of the Statute shall state the name of an agent and specify the case and the
convention to which it relates and shall contain:
(a) particulars of the basis on which the declarant State considers itself a
party to the convention;
(b) identification of the particular provisions of the convention the
construction of which it considers to be in question;
(c) a statement of the construction of those provisions for which it
contends;
( d) a list of the documents in support, which documents shall be attached.
3. Those matters are addressed in sequence below, following some preliminary
observations.
1. PRELIMINARY OBSERVA TI ONS
4. On 26 February 2022, Ukraine instituted proceedings against the Russian Federation in
a dispute relating to the interpretation, application and fulfilment of the 1948
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" (the
"Genocide Convention") in accordance with Article 36, paragraph 1, and Article 40 of
the Statute. 1 The Application instituting proceedings ("Application") was accompanied
by Ukraine's Request for the indication of provisional measures in accordance with
Article 41 of the Statute ("Request"). 2
Allegations ofGenocide under the Convention on the Prevent ion and Punishment of the Crime ofGenocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Application instituting proceedings, 26 February 2022 (the
"Application").
Allegations ofGenocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime ofGenocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Request for the indication ofprovisional measures, 26 February 2022 (the
"Request").
2
5. In its Application, Ukraine seeks to found the Court' s jurisdiction on Article 36,
paragraph 1, of the Statute and on Article IX of the Genocide Convention, to which both
Ukraine and the Russian Federation are Parties.3
6. ln the Application, Ukraine contends that:
the Russian Federation has falsely claimed that acts of genocide have
occurred in the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts of Ukraine, and on that basis
recognized the so-called "Donetsk People's Republic" and "Luhansk
People's Republic," and then declared and implemented a "special military
operation" against Ukraine with the express purpose of preventing and
punishing purported acts of genocide that have no basis in fact. 4
7. Ukraine asserts that, accordingly:
[t]here is a dispute between Ukraine and the Russian Federation within the
meaning of Article IX relating to the interpretation, application or
fulfilment of the Genocide Convention. 5
8. A hearing on provisional measures was held on 7 March 2022. The Russian Federation
did not participate in the oral proceedings. However, in a document communicated to
the Court on 7 March 2022 ("Document of the Russian Federation"), the Russian
Federation contended that both the Application and the Request manifestly fall beyond
the scope of the Genocide Convention and that, accordingly, the Court lacked
jurisdiction to entertain the case.6 The Russian Federation further "request[ed] the Court
to refrain from indicating provisional measures and to remove the case from its list".7
9. The Court issued its Ortler on provisional measures on 16 March 2022 ("Order on
Provisional Measures"), indicating that:
(1) ... The Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military
operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of
Ukraine;
(2) ... The Russian F ederation shall ensure that any military or irregular
armed units which may be directed or supported by it, as well as any
organizations and persans which may be subject to its control or direction,
take no steps in furtherance of the military operations referred to in point
(1) above;
See App 1 ication, paragraphs 4-12.
Application, paragraph 2.
Application, paragraph 7.
See Document (with annexes) from the Russian Federation setting out its position regarding the alleged
" Jack of jurisdiction of the Court in the case", 7 March 2022 ("Document of the Russian Federation"),
paragraph 23.
Document of the Russian Federation, paragraph 24.
3
(3) ... Both Parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or
extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.8
10. As of the date of submission ofthis Declaration, the Russian Federation has failed to
comply with the Ortler on Provisional Measures, which as the Court reaffirmed has
binding effect under Article 41 of the Statute, has intensified and expanded its military
operations on the territory of Ukraine and has thus aggravated the dispute pending
before the Court.
11. On 23 March 2022, the Court issued an order that fixed the time limits for the filing of
Ukraine's Memorial as 23 September 2022 and the Russian Federation's CounterMemorial
as 23 March 2023.
12. On 30 March 2022, pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute, the Registrar
duly notified the States Parties to the Genocide Convention that in this case:
[the Genocide Convention] is invoked bath as a basis of the Court's
jurisdiction and as a substantive basis of [Ukraine's] claims on the merits.
In particular, [Ukraine] seeks to found the Court' s jurisdiction on the
compromissory clause contained in Article IX of the Genocide
Convention, asks the Court to declare that it has not committed a genocide
as defined in Articles Il and Ill of the Convention, and raises questions
conceming the scope of the duty to prevent and punish genocide under
Article I of the Convention. It therefore appears that the construction of
[the Genocide Convention] will be in question in the case.9
13. By submitting this Declaration, Slovakia avails itself of the right to intervene conferred
upon it under Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute. As this Court has recognized, once
the requirements of Article 63 are fulfilled, it confers a "right" of intervention.10
Slovakia's right to intervene stems from its status as a State Party to the Genocide
Convention. In accordance with Article 63 of the Statute, 11 Slovakia limits its
10
Il
Allegations ofGenocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime ofGenocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Order of the Court
of 16 March 2022 ("Order on Provisional Measures"), paragraph 86.
Letter from the Registrar of the International Court of Justice to the States Parties to the Genocide
Convention, No. 156413, 30 March 2022, Annex A.
See, e.g., Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Application by Honduras for
Permission to lntervene, Judgment of 4 May 2011 , I.C.J. Reports 2011 (II), p. 434, paragraph 36;
Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Application for Permission to lntervene, Judgment of
14 April 1981, I.C.J. Reports 1981 , p. 15, para. 26; Haya de la Torre (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment of 13
June 1951, l.C.J. Reports 1951, pp. 76-77; S.S. "Wimbledon", Question of Intervention by Poland,
Judgment of28 June 1923, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 1, p. 12; Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan),
Declaration of Intervention of New Zealand, Order of 6 February 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013, paragraphs 7-
8.
See also Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan), Declaration of Intervention by New Zealand, Order
of 6 February 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 9, paragraph 18.
4
intervention to matters concerning the construction of the pertinent clause of the
Genocide Convention (the jurisdiction clause contained in Article IX) in the context of
the present case.
14. Furthermore, Article 82, paragraph 2, of the Rules provides that a declaration of a State
desiring to av ail itself of the right of intervention conferred upon it by Article 63 of the
Statute shall be filed "as soon as possible and not later than the date fixed for the
opening of the oral proceedings". Slovakia wishes to inform the Court that the present
Declaration has been filed at its earliest opportunity.
15. Slovakia considers that the Genocide Convention constitutes the international legal
framework of utmost importance to prevent and punish genocide. Any acts committed
with an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, national, ethnical, racial or religious group
constitute a crime under international law. The prohibition of genocide is a peremptory
norm in international law (jus cogens).12
16. As the Court has previously acknowledged, the rights and obligations enshrined ih the
Genocide Convention constitute rights and obligations erga omnes partes - they are
owed to the international community as a whole. The Court has observed:
It is indeed difficult to imagine a convention that might have this dual
character to a greater degree, since its object on the one hand is to
safeguard the very existence of certain human groups and on the other to
confirmand endorse the most elementary principles of morality. In such a
convention the contracting States do not have any interests of their own;
they merely have, one and all, a common interest, namely, the
accomplishment of those high purposes which are the raison d'être of the
Convention. Consequently, in a convention of this type one cannot speak
of individual advantages or disadvantages to States .. . 13
17. By intervening in this case, Slovakia wishes to reaffirm its commitment to upholding
the rights and obligations contained in the Genocide Convention, including by
supporting the crucial role of the Court and emphasizing that international cooperation
is required to prevent, adjudicate on and punish acts of genocide. 14
18. In accordance with Article 63 of the Statute, Slovakia does not seek to become a party
to the proceedings. Moreover, also in accordance with Article 63 of the Statute,
Slovakia acknowledges that, by availing itself of its right to intervene under Article 63,
12
13
14
See, e.g., Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of26 February 2007, I.C.J . Reports 2007,
p. 110, paragraphs 161-162.
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory
Opinionof28 May 1951,I.C.J.Reports 1951 , p.23.
See Genocide Convention, Preamble: ,,Being convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an
odious scourge, international co-operation is required".
5
it accepts that the construction to be given by the Court's judgment in the case will be
equally binding upon it.
19. Slovakia further informs the Court that it is willing to assist the Court in grouping its
intervention together with similar interventions from other States Parties, for future
stages of the proceedings, if the Court deems such move to be useful in the interest of
an expedient administration of justice.
Il. THE CASE AND CONVENTION TO WHICH THE DECLARATION RELATES
20. Slovakia is filing this Declaration to intervene in the case concerning Alle galions of
Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). Proceedings were instituted by Ukraine
against the Russian Federation on 26 February 2022. As confirmed by the Court in its
Order on Provisional Measures, the present case raises questions concerning the
construction of the Genocide Convention. 15
III. PARTICULARS OF THE BASIS ON WHICH SLOVAKIA ISA PARTY TO
THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION
21 . Czechoslovakia, as the predecessor State of Slovakia, signed and ratified the Genocide
Convention on 28 December 1949 and 21 December 1950, respectively, with a
reservation to Articles IX and XII (as contained in the procés-verbal of signature and
confirmed upon ratification). 16 lt deposited its instrument of ratification with the
Secretary-General of the United Nations on 21 December 1950. 17
22. By a notification deposited on 26 April 1991, Czechoslovakia notified the SecretaryGeneral
of its decision to withdraw the reservation to Article IX made upon signature
and confirmed upon ratification. 18
23. Upon the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, Slovakia deposited its notification of general
succession to ail UN multilateral treaties entered into by Czechoslovakia, including the
15
16
17
18
See Letter !rom the Registrar of the International Court of Justice to the States Parties to the Genocide
Convention, No. 1564 13, 30 March 2022, Annex A.
Procés-verbal of signature of the Genocide Convention by Czechoslovakia, 28 December 1949, Annex B.
Notification by the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the ratification and deposition of the
Genocide Convention by Czechoslovakia, 12 January 1951, Annex C.
Notification by the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the notification by Czechoslovakia of its
decision to withdraw its reservation to Article IX, 8 July 1991 , Annex D.
6
Genocide Convention, with the Secretary-General on 28 May 1993, with entry into
force on 1 January 1993. 19
IV. PROVISIONS OF THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION THE CONSTRUCTION
OF WHICH SLOV AKIA CONSIDERS TO BE IN QUESTION
24. According to the letter of the Registrar of 30 March 2022, Articles I, II, III and IX of the
Genocide Convention are in question in the present proceedings.20 Although these
provisions relate bath to the Court' s jurisdiction and the merits of the case, at present,
Slovakia will limit its intervention to jurisdictional issues, i.e. to matters concerning the
construction of the jurisdiction clause contained in Article IX of the Genocide
Convention.
25. In its Application, Ukraine seeks to found the jurisdiction of the Court on Article 36,
paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court and on Article IX of the Genocide Convention.21
Article IX of the Genocide Convention pro vides:
Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation,
application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those
relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other
acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court
of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.
26. In its "Document" of 7 March 2022, the Russian Federation alleges that Article IX of
the Genocide Convention does not establish the Court' s jurisdiction in the present
case.22 Therefore, the key legal issue for the Courtis whether it has jurisdiction on the
basis of Article IX of the Genocide Convention to hear Ukraine's case. In order to make
this determination, the Court must ascertain whether the acts complained of by Ukraine
are capable of falling within the provisions of that instrument and whether, in turn, the
Court has jurisdiction ratione maleriae to entertain the dispute.
2 7. lt is, therefore, the proper construction of Article IX as the compromissory clause of the
Genocide Convention that is in question in this case. The construction of Article IX and,
therefore, the issue of the j urisdiction of the Court, is directly relevant to the resolution
of the present dispute.
28. Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute provides, in general and without qualification,
that a notified State is entitled to intervene "[w J henever the construction of a convention
to which states other than those concerned in the case are parties is in question"
19
20
21
22
Notification by the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the notification by Slovakia of its general
succession to multilateral treaties entered into by Czechoslovakia, 1 November 1993, Annex E.
Letter from the Registrar of the International Court of Justice to the States Parties to the Genocide
Convention, No. 156413, 30 March 2022, Annex A.
See Application, paragraphs 4-12.
See Document of the Russian Federation, paragraph 24.
7
(emphasis added). Article 63 differentiates neither between various types of treaty
provisions, nor between types of treaties. Thus, under Article 63, States Parties to the
relevant treaty have the right to intervene not only in respect of issues of interpretation
of a treaty' s substantive provisions but also on issues of interpretation of jurisdictional
clauses of such a treaty.
29. Slovakia reserves the right to amend or supplement the present Declaration and any
associated further observations to the extent that additional matters of either jurisdiction
or merits arise at a later stage in the proceedings and Slovakia becomes aware of them.
V. STATEMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF PROVISIONS OF THE
GENOCIDE CONVENTION FOR WHICH SLOV AKIA CONTENDS
30. Slovakia contends that Article IX of the Genocide Convention is a broadly drafted
compromissory clause that entrusts the Court with jurisdiction over a wide range of
disputes, including non-violation complaints. Slovakia's observations as to the proper
construction of Article IX of the Genocide Convention will address each of the key
elements of Article IX in tum.
31. As a preliminary matter, the construction of Article IX of the Genocide Convention for
which Slovakia con tends is based on the customary international law of treaty
interpretation, as reflected in provisions of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties. Article 31 of VCL T provides that:
1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the
ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and
in the Iight of its object and purpose.
2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall
comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes: (a)
any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the
parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty; (b) any instrument
which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion
of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to
the treaty.
32. As a precondition to the Court having jurisdiction under Article IX, a "dispute" must
exist between the Parties conceming the interpretation, application or fui filment of the
Genocide Convention. The notion of "dispute" is already well-established in the case
law of the Court. The Court has recognized that the meaning given to the word
"dispute" is "a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of
8
interests" between the parties.23 In order for a dispute to exist, " [i]t must be shown that
the claim of one party is positively opposed by the other". 24 Thus, "a dispute between
States exists where they hold clearly opposite views conceming the question of the
performance or non-performance of certain international obligations".25 It is against this
background that the existence of a dispute under Article IX of the Genocide Convention
is to be determined.
33. Moreover, the existence of a dispute must be determined objectively. One party's
unilateral denial that a dispute has arisen is not determinative of whether or nota
dispute exists for the purposes of Article IX of the Genocide Convention. 26
Furthermore, the failure of a respondent State to participate in the proceedings does not
preclude the Court from exercising its jurisdiction,27 including deciding whether there is
a dispute between the parties for the purposes of its jurisdiction. As the Court has
recognised, "in case the respondent has failed to reply to the applicant's claims, it may
be inferred from this silence, in certain circumstances, that it rejects those claims and
that, therefore, a dispute exists".28
34.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Ukraine seeks to found the jurisdiction of the Court under the Genocide Convention on
the basis of allegations of genocide made by the Russian Federation.29 lt has also
Mavrornrnatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. United Kingdorn), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of30
August 1924, P.C.1.J., Series A, No. 2, p. 11.
South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Preliminary Obj ections, Judgment of
21 December 1962, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 328. See also Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to
Cessation of the Nuclear Arrns Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom),
Preliminary Objections, J udgment of 5 October 20 16, I.C.J. Reports 2016, p. 850, paragraph 41 .
Application of the /n1ernationaf Convention on the Elimination of Ali Forms of Racial Discrimination
(Qatar v. United Arab Emirates), Provisional Measures, Order of23 July 2018, l.C.J. Reports 2018, p. 406,
at p. 414, para. 18. See also Alleged Violations ofSovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean
Sea (Nicaragua v. Co/ombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 17 March 2016, I.C.J. Reports 2016,
p. 26, paragraph 50 and Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing
of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of Ali For ms of Racial Discrimination
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 19 April 2017, l.C.J. Reports 2017, p.
11 5, paragraph 22, bath citing Jnterpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Roma nia, First
Phase, Advisory Opinion of30 March 1950, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 74.
See, e.g., Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arrns Race and to
Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 5
October 2016, I.C.J. Reports 2016, pp. 849-851, paragraphs 39-43.
See Statute, Article 53( 1 ); Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela), Jurisdiction of the
Court, Judgment of 18 December 2020, l.C.J. Reports 2020, p. 464, paragraph 26; Military and
Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits,
Judgment of27 June 1986, I.C.J . Reports 1986, p. 23, paragraph 27.
See Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The
Cambia v. Myanmar), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of22 July 2022, p. 27, paragraph 71; Application
of the International Convention on the Elimination of Ali Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v.
Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 1 April 201 1, l.C.J. Reports 2011 (1), p. 84,
paragraph 30, citing land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria),
Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 11 June 1998, I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 315, paragraph 89.
See Application, paragraphs 2 and 7.
9
invoked the Genocide Convention as a substantive basis of its claims on the merits. The
Russian Federation in its "Document" alleges that a reference to genocide is not equal
to the invocation of the Genocide Convention or the existence of a dispute arising under
it.30
35. As the Court has affirmed in the past31 and reiterated recently in The Cambia v.
Myanmar,32 a compromissory clause of a specific treaty can be invoked provided the
dispute refers to the subject matter of the treaty with sufficient clarity. The Court has
previously specifically recalled this principle in the present proceedings.33 In its Ortler
on Provisional Measures, the Court considered that:
in the present proceedings, the evidence in the case file demonstrates prima
facie that statements made by the Parties referred to the subject-matter of
the Genocide Convention in a sufficiently clear way to allow Ukraine to
invoke the compromissory clause in this instrument as a basis for the
Court's jurisdiction.34
36. Furthermore, assuming that a dispute between the States Parties exists, the dispute must,
at the same time, "relat[ e] to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the
Convention" in order for the Court to be able to exercise its jurisdiction under Article
IX of the Genocide Convention.
3 7. The ordinary meaning of the phrase "relating to the interpretation, application or
fulfilment of the Convention" may be divided into two sub-categories. The first part
"relating to" establishes a link between the dispute and the Genocide Convention. The
subject matter of the dispute thus must concern the Genocide Convention itself.
38. As for the second part "interpretation, application or fulfilment", the wording is
intentionally broad, "opening the seizing of the Court as largely as possible" .35 In
particular, the inclusion of the word "fui filment" in addition to "interpretation and
application" that traditionally appear in compromissory clauses, suggests that the
Contracting Parties intended the scope of Article IX to be understood broadly and
include situations where the Court is asked to declare the absence of genocide when
genocide is being alleged to take place. Where one State Party to the Genocide
30
31
32
33
34
35
See Document of the Russian Federation, paragraph 20.
See, e.g., Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of Ali Forms of Racial
Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgrnent of 1 April 20 11, I.C.J .
Reports 20 11 (1), p. 85, paragraph 30.
See Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The
Gambia v. Myanmar), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of22 July 2022, p. 27, paragraph 72.
See Order on Provisional Measures, paragraph 44.
Order on Provisional Measures, paragraph 44.
R. Kolb, "The Compromissory Clause of the Convention", in: Paola Gaeta (ed.), The UN Genocide
Convention: A Commentary (OUP), p. 420.
10
Convention accuses another of committing genocidal acts, the "fulfilment" of the
Genocide Convention is clearly at stake.
39. Accordingly, Article IX encompasses many different scenarios. There can be a dispute
about the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Genocide Convention when one
State alleges that another State has comrnitted genocide.36 While this scenario of
(alleged) responsibility for acts of genocide constitutes an important type of dispute on
the "interpretation, application or fulfilment" of the Genocide Convention, it is not the
only one.
40. For example, in The Gambia v. Myanmar (pending), the applicant claimed that the
defendant was not only responsible for prohibited acts under Article III, but that it was
also violating its obligations under the Genocide Convention by failing to prevent
genocide in violation of Article I; and failing to punish genocide in violation of Articles
I, IV and V.37 In that example, one State alleges that another State is not honouring its
comrnitment to "prevent" and "punish" genocide, because it grants impunity to acts of
genocide comrnitted on its territory. Therefore, there can also be disputes about "nonaction"
as a violation of the substantive obligations under the Genocide Convention.
41. The ordinary meaning of Article IX thus makes it clear that there is no need to establish
genocidal acts as a basis to affirm the Court's jurisdiction.38 Rather, the Court has
jurisdiction over the question whether genocidal acts have been or are being committed
or not.39 Hence, it also has jurisdiction ratione materiae to declare the absence of
genocide and the violation of a good faith performance of the Genocide Convention,
resulting in an abuse of the law.
42. The context of the phrase "relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the
Convention" further confirms this reading. In particular, the unusual feature of the word
"including" in the intermediate sentence of Article IX indicates an all-encompassing
nature of Article IX. The provision expressly indicates that disputes "relating to the
responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article
III" are "included" in the wider phrase of disputes "relating to the interpretation,
application and fulfilment" of the Genocide Convention and they may thus be referred
to the Court. This confirms that such disputes "are comprised within a broader group of
36
37
38
39
See Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia
and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of27 February 2007, p. 114, paragraph 169.
See Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The
Gambia v. Myanmar), Preliminary Objections, Jutlgment of22 July 2022, p. 12, paragraph 24, Points(!)
(c), (d) and (e).
See Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The
Gambia v. Myanmar), Ortler of23 January 2020, I.C.J. Reports 2020, p. 14, paragraph 30.
See Ortler on Provisional Measures, paragraph 43.
l l
disputes relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention".40
There is nothing in this text which limits the Court' s jurisdiction to the determination of
the responsibility of a respondent State, as opposed to the responsibility of an applicant
State.
43. That interpretation is confinned by the fact that the wording of Article IX expressly
provides that the Court has jurisdiction "at the request of any of the parties to the
dispute" (emphasis added). This language suggests that a State accused of committing
genocide has the same rights to submit the dispute to the Court as the State making the
accusation, and the Court will be in a position to exercise its jurisdiction. Indeed, there
is no reason why a State facing what it considers to be an unfounded allegation of
breach of the Genocide Convention cannot, on its own accord, bring the matter before
the Court. Such a State may thus choose bring a "non-violation" complaint and seek a
"negative" declaration from the Court that the allegations from another State that it was
responsible for genocide are without legal or factual grounds.
44. Otherwise a State Party could freely invent violations of the Genocide Convention by
another State Party without the latter being able to have recourse to the Court. Such
interpretation could lead to serious abuses of the Genocide Convention.
45. Hence, the context of the phrase "relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment
of the Convention" in Article IX confirms that the Court's jurisdiction goes beyond
disputes between States about the responsibility for alleged genocidal acts. lt also
covers disputes between States about the occurrence of genocide or the absence thereof.
In particular, Article IX thus also covers disputes that relate to situations in which one
State Party of the Genocide Convention alleges that another State Party is committing or
has comrnitted acts of genocide in its territory and where, relying on such accusations,
the former State Party then uses military force against the latter.
46. A broad understanding of the Genocide Convention's compromissory clause is further
confirmed by the fact that it does not require, unlike many other compromissory
clauses, any additional procedural requirements such as prior negotiations or attempts to
settle the dispute by other means, e.g. arbitration.
47. Finally, also the abject and purpose of the Genocide Convention must give support to
the wide interpretation of Article IX. The Court has emphasized in its 1951 Advisory
Opinion that:
40
The objects of such a convention must also be considered. The Convention
was manifestly adopted for a purely humanitarian and civilizing purpose.
lt is indeed difficult to imagine a convention that might have this dual
character to a greater degree, since its object on the one hand is to
Application of the Convention of the Prevent ion and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina v. Serbia and Monlenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 114,
paragraph 169.
12
safeguard the very existence of certain human groups and on the other to
confirmand endorse the most elementary principles of morality. In such a
convention the contracting States do not have any interests of their own;
they merely have, one and all, a common interest, namely, the
accomplishment of those high purposes which are the raison d 'être of the
convention. Consequently, in a convention of this type one cannot speak
of individual advantages or disadvantages to States, or of the maintenance
of a perfect contractual balance between rights and duties. The high ideals
which inspired the Convention provide, by virtue of the common will of
the parties, the foundation and measure of all its provisions. 41
48. The Genocide Convention's abject to protect the most elementary principles of morality
also prohibits any possibility of a State Party to abuse its provisions for other means. It
would undermine the Genocide Convention's credibility as a universal instrument to
outlaw the most abhorrent crime of genocide, if its authority could be abused by any
State Party without a possibility of the victim of such abuse to tum to the Court. The
purpose of the Genocide Convention hence speaks loudly in favour of a reading of
Article IX, according to which disputes relating to the interpretation, application ând
fulfilment include disputes about the abuse of the Genocide Convention's authority to
justify a State's action vis-à-vis another State Party to the Genocide Convention.
49. In conclusion, the ordinary meaning of Article IX of the Genocide Convention, its
context and the abject and purpose of the entire Genocide Convention show that a
dispute regarding acts carried out by one State against another State based on false
allegations of genocide falls under the notion of "dispute between Contracting Parties
relating to the interpretation, application or fui filment of the present Convention".
Accordingly, the Court has jurisdiction to declare the absence of genocide and the
violation of a good faith performance of the Genocide Convention, resulting in an abuse
of the law. In particular, the jurisdiction of the Court extends to disputes concerning the
unilateral use of military force for the stated purpose of preventing and punishing
alleged genocide.
VI. DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT
50. The following is a list of the documents in support ofthis Declaration, which documents
are attached hereto:
41
42
(a) Letter from the Registrar of the International Court of Justice to the
Ambassador of Slovakia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands dated 30
March 2022·42
'
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory
Opinion of28 May 1951 , I.C.J. Reports 1951 , page 23.
Letter from the Registrar of the International Cou11 of Justice to the States Parties to the Genocide
Convention, No. 156413, 30 March 2022, Annex A.
13
(b) Instruments of signature and ratification by Czechoslovakia of the
Genocide Convention;43
(c) Instrument of withdrawal by Czechoslovakia of the reservation to
Article IX of the Genocide Convention;44 and
(d) Instrument of succession by Slovakia to multilateral treaty obligations
of Czechoslovakia, including under the Genocide Convention.45
VII. CONCLUSION
51. On the basis of the information set out above, Slovakia avails itself of the right
conferred upon it by Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute to intervene as a non-party
in the proceedings brought by Ukraine against the Russian Federation in this case.
52. Slovakia has appointed the undersigned as Agent for the purposes of this Declaration. It
has also appointed Mr. Peter Klanduch, Director of the International Law Department of
the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic, as Co-Agent. The
Registrar of the Court may channel all communication at the following address:
Embassy of the Slovak Republic in The Hague
Parkweg 1
2585 JG Den Haag
53. Slovakia reserves the right to supplement or amend this Declaration and any associated
further observations as may be necessary.
Respectfully,
Metod Spacek
Agent of the Slovak Republic
43
44
45
Procés-verbal of signature of the Genocide Convention by Czechoslovakia, 28 December 1949, Annex B;
Notification by the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the ratification and deposition of the
Genocide Convention by Czechoslovakia, 12 January 1951 , Annex C.
Notification by the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the notification by Czechoslovakia of its
decision to withdraw its reservation to Article IX, 8 July 1991, Annex D.
Notification by the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the notification by Slovakia of its succession
to multilateral treaties entered into by Czechoslovakia, 1 November 1993, Annex E.
14
COUR INTERNATIONALE
DE JUSTICE
INTERNATIONAL COURT
OF JUSTICE
156413 30 March 2022
I have the honour to refer to my letter (No. 156253) dated 2 March 2022 informing your
Government that, on 26 February 2022, Ukraine filed in the Registry of the Court an Application
instituting proceedings against the Republic of the Russian Federation in the case concerning
Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). A copy of the Application was appended to that letter.
The text of the Application is also available on the website of the Court (www.icj-cij.org).
Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court provides that:
[w]henever the construction of a convention to which States other than those concerned
in the case are parties is in question, the Registrar shall notify all such States forthwith".
Further, under Article 43, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court:
"Whenever the construction of a convention to which States other than those
concerned in the case are parties may be in question within the meaning of Article 63,
paragraph 1, of the Statute, the Court shall consider what directions shall be given to the
Registrar in the matter."
On the instructions of the Court, given in accordance with the said provision of the Rules of
Court, I have the honour to notify your Government of the following.
In the above -mentioned Application, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter the "Genocide Convention") is invoked both as a basis of the
Court's jurisdiction and as a substantive basis of the Applicant's claims on the merits. In particular,
the Applicant seeks to found the Court's jurisdiction on the compromissory clause contained in
Article IX of the Genocide Convention, asks the Court to declare that it has not committed a genocide
as defined in Articles II and III of the Convention, and raises questions concerning the scope of the
duty to prevent and punish genocide under Article I of the Convention. It therefore appears that the
construction of this instrument will be in question in the case.
./.
[Letter to the States parties to the Genocide Convention
(except Ukraine and the Russian Federation)]
Palais de la Paix, Carnegieplein 2
2517 KJ La Haye - Pays -Bas
Telephone : +31(0) 70 302 23 23 - Facsimile : +31 (0) 70 364 99 28
Site Internet: www.icj-cij.org
Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2
2517 KJ The Hague -Netherlands
Telephone: +31(0) 70 302 23 23 - Telefax: +31(0) 70 364 99 28
Website: www.icj-cij.org
ANNEX A
COUR INTERNATIONALE
DE JUSTICE
1 NTERNATIONAL COURT
OF JUSTICE
156413 30 March 2022
I have the honour to refer to my letter (No. 156253) dated 2 March 2022 informing your
Government that, on 26 February 2022, Ukraine filed in the Registry of the Court an Application
instituting proceedings against the Republic of the Russian Federation in the case conceming
Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). A copy of the Application was appended to that letter.
The text of the Application is also available on the website of the Court (www.icj-cij.org).
Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court provides that:
[ w ]henever the construction of a convention to which States other than those concerned
in the case are parties is in question, the Registrar shall notify all such States forthwith".
Further, un der Article 43, paragraph 1, of the Ru les of Court:
"Whenever the construction of a convention to which States other than those
concemed in the case are parties may be in question within the meaning of Article 63,
paragraph 1, of the Statute, the Court shall con si der what directions shall be given to the
Registrar in the matter."
On the instructions of the Court, given in accordance with the said provision of the Rules of
Court, I have the honour to notify your Government of the following.
In the above-mentioned Application, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter the "Genocide Convention") is invoked bath as a basis of the
Court's jurisdiction and as a substantive basis of the Applicant's claims on the merits. In particular,
the Applicant seeks to found the Court's jurisdiction on the compromissory clause contained in
Article IX of the Genocide Convention, asks the Court to declare that it has not committed a genocide
as defined in Articles II and III of the Convention, and raises questions conceming the scope of the
duty to prevent and punish genocide under Article I of the Convention. It therefore appears that the
construction of this instrument will be in question in the case.
[Lette r to the States parties to the Genocide Convention
(except Ukraine and the Russian Federation)]
Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2
2517 KJ The Hague - Ne therlands
./.
Palais de la Paix, Carnegieple in 2
2517 KJ La Haye - Pays -B as
Téléphone: +3 1 (0) 70 302 23 23 - Facsimilé: +31 (0) 70 364 99 28
Site Internet: www.icj-cij.org
Telephone: + 31 (0) 70 302 23 23 - Telefax: + 31 (0) 70 364 99 28
Website: www.icj-cij.org
COUR INTERNATIONALE INTERNATIONAL COURT
DE JUSTICE
OF JUSTICE
Your country is included in the list of parties to the Genocide Convention. The present letter
should accordingly be regarded as the notification contemplated by Article 63, paragraph 1, of the
Statute. I would add that this notification in no way prejudges any question of the possible application
of Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute, which the Court may later be called upon to determine in
this case.
Accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.
Philippe Gautier
Registrar
- 2 -
INTERNATIONALE
1 NTERNATIONAL Y our 1 this notification prejudges 63 , - 2 -
ANNEX B
•
POOCES-VERBAL OF SIOE '!URE --------------~---
His Excellcncy Mr. Vladimir Outrat , ::lbassa.dor or Czechoslov ~i.e.
to the United sto.tes of .Atlcrica, prior to a:i.c::nin[_, the Convention on tho
Prevention Md Punishmcnt of the Crirao of Genocide, in the office or the
Assistant Secretory- Oenoral in charge of the Lc:a]. Dopru:tment, t the
Intorim Heodquarters ot the Unitod rations, on ednooday, 28 Dcc~r
1949, made tho f ollwinB ~tateoent :
11 t the tme of ai.tJniris the p1·eoent Convention the
delegation of Czcchoslovakin dccms it e~scnti.al to state
the folloring :
As r ,,ards Article IX : Czechoslovakia ocs not
consider as biding upon itscl: .., ~ .,.L·u !. • fi of Article IX
uhich providest t dioputes bct con tho Contracti.ne Partico
with roc rd to the intcr pretni,;ion, application and ir..pl ntation
of the preocnt Convention ehall be ref errod for cxa.-:ûnation to
the International Cc,,.irt nt the rcquost of nny party to the
dispute, and dcclnres that., as regards the Intcrnationnl CO'.irt 1o
jurisdiction in r spcct of disput s concerning the intcrpretation.,
applicri.tion and ir.lpl~ntation of the Convention, Czccho..,lovakia
will, as hithorto., maintain tho position that in cach particulor
caso the o.crcemcnt of e.11 parties to the dispite is e5sential for
the aubnission of any particulo.r diopute to th International
Court for doc·ision.
As rap,ards rticle XII : CzechoslovakiD decla.reo thot it io
not in agrecoent m.th Article XII of the Convention o.nd considcrs
thnt all the provinions of tho Convention should cxtcnd to nonscli'-
Jovornin.i; tcrritorics, including truat tcrritorieon.
In witness whereor th prescnt pz c ê ... -verbal uao dr.:i.m up.
Donc at Lake Succoss., f!eu Yo1·l~, thia 28th de.y of Dece;:ibcr 1949.
Ivan i.erno
Assiotant Sccretary- 'Jenel'Al.
:m ch e of the Lc..,al Dcpart c .. ,
Vlooioir Outr ta.
ooador of Czechoslov ci.a
to t c United tato3 of rica
ANNEX C
l"ILII. ND.I
UNITED NATIONS
NEW YORK
CA ■ LIEADDAE ■■ • UNATIDNS NEWYDAK• ADRE ■■ ll:TIELl:OAA~HIQUI:
C.N.204.1950.TREATIES 12·January 1951
CONVENTION OF 9 DEcm.mER 1948 ON THE PREVENTION
AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
RATIFICATION BY CZECHOSLOVAKIA (;
Sir, n "-..
y
I am directed by the Secretary-Gene~ to inform you that
the instrument of ratification of tievention on the
Prevention and Punishment of th~r~e of Genocide by Czechoslovakia
was received on 21 December 1950Viis instrument of ratification
maintains the reservations ralating to articles IX and XII ma.de at
•
the time of signature b\ the representative of Czechoslovakia and
announced in letter C~.1949.Treaties of 30 December 1949.
Replies from~Governments of Guatemala (C.N.113.1950 and
C.N.131.1950),~dor (LEG 318/2/03 of 5 May 1950), Australia
(C.N.170.1950 ~.N.197.1950), El Salvador (C.N.188.1950) and
Viet Nam{05.1950), however, expressed disagreement with, or
objection to, the aforementioned reservations.
UNITE~~~A~T~ON~~ -~NATIO~~S UNIES
~
- 2 -
Accordingly, pursuant to pa.ragraph three of the Resolution
on Reservations to Multilateral Conventions, adopted by the
General Assembly at its 305th plenary meeting on 16 November 1950,
notification is hereby made of the receipt of the above-mentioned
instrument, without prejud.ice toits legal effect, pending the
decision, contempl.ated by that Resolution, ~neral Assembly
at its sixth session. "
I have thqnour to be, Qir,
Gobedient Servant,
• • Assistant Secretary-General
Legal Department
ANNEX D
UNITED NATIONS ,i~~,, NATIONS UNIES ~
POST"L ADDRE&S--I\.DFIE5SE POSTALE UNITED NATIONS. N.Y. 10011
CAl!ILE ADDAE55-AOAll!:t,;SE TELEGRAPHIQUE UNATIONt,; NEWYOAK
Ruu1<Nco: C.N.98.1991.TREATIES-l (Depositary Notification)
CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT
OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS
ON 9 DECEMBER 1948
WITHDRAWAL OF A RESERVATION MADE BY CZECHOSLOVAKIA
ACCESSION BY ZIMBABWE
The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his
capacity as depositary, communicates the following:
I
On 26 April 1991, the Government of Czechoslovakia notified the
Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the following
reservation to article IX of the Convention, made upon signature and
confirmed at the time of ratification, as circulated by depositary
notification C.N.180.1949.TREATIES of 30 December 1949:
(Translation) (Original: Czech)
As regards Article IX: Czechoslovakia does not consider
as binding upon itself the provisions of Article IX which
provides that disputes between the Contracting Parties with
regard to the interpretation, application and implementation of
the present Convention shall be referred for examination to the
International Court at the request of any party to the dispute,
and declares that, as regards the International Court's
jurisdiction in respect of disputes concerning the
interpretation, application and implementation of the
Convention, Czechoslovakia will, as hitherto, maintain the
position that in each particular case the agreement of all
parties to the dispute is essential for the submission of any
particular dispute to the International Court for decision.
Attention: Treaty Services of Ministries of Foreign Affairs and of
international organizations concerned
(IV.1)
UNITED NATIONS (a) NATlONS UNIES
~
-2-
II
On 13 May 1991, the instrument of accession by the Government
of Zimbabwe ta the above-mentioned Convention was deposited with the
Secretary-General.
In accordance with article XIII, the Convention will enter into
force for Zimbabwe on the ninetieth day following the date of
deposit of the instrument, i.e. on 11 August 1991.
8 July 1991
CORRESPONDENCE UNIT
120 MEMBER STATES plus 6 NON-MEMBERS
ENGLISH AND SPANISH
AFGHANISTAN GAMBIA NAMIBIA
ANGOLA GERMANY NEPAL
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA GHANA NETHERLANDS
AUSTRALIA GREECE NEW ZEALAND
AUSTRIA GRENADA NICARAGUA
BAHAMAS GUATEMALA NIGERIA
BAHRAIN GUYANA NORWAY
BANGLADESH HONDURAS OMAN
BARBADOS HUNGARY PAKISTAN
BELIZE ICELAND PANAMA
BHUTAN INDIA PAPUA NEW GUINEA
BOLIVIA INDONESIA PERU
BOTSWANA IRAN PHILIPPINES
BRAZIL IRAQ POLAND
BRUNEI DARUSSALAM IRELAND PORTUGAL
BULGARIA ISRAEL QATAR
BYELORUSSIAN SSR JAMAICA SAINT KITTS
CANADA JAPAN AND NEVIS
CHILE JORDAN SAINT LUCIA
CHINA KENYA SAINT VINCENT AND
COLOMBIA KUWAIT THE GRENADINES
COSTA RICA LESOTHO SAMOA
CUBA LIBERIA SAUDI ARABIA
CYPRUS LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA SEYCHELLES
CZECHOSLOVAf<IA LIECHTENSTEIN SIERRA LEONE
DENMARK MALAWI SINGAPORE
DOMINICA MALAYSIA SOLOMON ISLANDS
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC MALDIVES SOMALIA
ECUADOR MALTA SOUTH AFRICA
EGYPT MAURITIUS SPAIN
EL SALVADOR MEXICO SRI LANKA
ETHIOPIA MONGOLIA SUDAN
FIJI MOZAMBIQUE SURINAME
FINLAND MYANMAR SWAZILAND
INFORMATION COPY SENT TO:
ALSO SENT TO:
SWEDEN
SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
THAILAND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
TURKEY
UGANDA
UKRAINIAN SSR
UNION OF SOVIET
SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED REPUBLIC
OF TANZANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
URUGUAY
VANUATU
VENEZUELA
VIET NAM
YEMEN
YUGOSLAVIA
ZA.MBIA
ZIMBABWE
NON-MEMBER STATES
DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
KIRIBATI
NAURU
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
TONGA
TUVALU
✓
ALSO SENT TO
The Chief, Distribution Section, Publishing Division, DCS, Room
NL-316 (65 copies. English and French, for distribution to the
Information Centres)
Bureau de liaison juridique, Palais des Nations, Genève;
Suisse/Switzerland (E+F.)
The Law Librarian, UNCITRAL Law Library Vienna International
Centre, P.O. Box 500, A-1400 Vienna, Austria (E+F)
Monsieur le Greffier de la Cour internationale de Justice, Palais
de la Paix, 2517 KJ La Haye, Pays-Bas/Netherlands (E+F)
Professer David L. Harris, LL.M., Ph.D., Editor, Index of
Multilateral Treaties, University of Nottingham, Treaty Centre,
University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom
The Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs, Room S-3427-C (E+F)
The chief, Treaty Section, Office of Legal Affairs, Roorn S-3200-A
(E+F)
Monsieur le Directeur de la Division des droits de l'homme et de
la paix, Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'éducation, la
science et la culture (UNESCO), 7, place de Fontenoy, F-75700
Paris, France
The Director, Human Rights, International Affairs Division,
Commonwealth Secretariat, Marlborough House, Pall Mall, London,
SWlY 5HX, United Kingdorn
International Committee on the Red Cross (ICRC), 780 Third
Avenue, 28th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10017
The High Cornrnissioner, United Nations High Cornrnissioner for
Refugees, Legal Division, Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland
(E+F)
The Regional Representative, UNHCR, Roorn C-301-A
The Chief, Documentation and Publication Unit, Roorn 535, Centre
for Human Rights, Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland
The Chief, Liaison Office, Centre for Human Rights, Room S-2914
The Deputy Director, Codification Division, Roorn S-3460
Marilou M. Righini, International Legal Materials, American
Society of International Law, 2223 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008-2864
Professer Igor I. Kavass, Legal Information Center, School of
Law, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37240
UN/SA Collection Office 127 United Nations Offices Geneva
ANNEX E
III.l
III.2
III. 3
◄ III. 6
III.9
III.11
III.12
'
l~l. UNITED NATIONS ~/ NATIONS UNIES
~
1-OSTAL A.OOR.llSS-ADRESSE POSTALf· UNITED N-'TIONS. N.'f. 10017
CA.BL~ AOORE:SS-A.ORE:SSE TELEGRAPHIQUE· LINA.TIONS NIWYO~K
REFERENltlC. C.N.184.1993.TREATIES (Depositary Notification)
MULTILATERAL TREATIES DEPOSITED WITH THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
SUCCESSION BY SLOVAKIA
The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in hie
capacity as depositary and with reference to Depositary
Letter LA 41 TR/222 SLOVAKIA dated 16 July 1993, communicates the
following:
On 28 May 1993, the Government of Slovakia notified the
Secretary-General that it considered itself bound, by virtue of
succession to the Czech and Slovak Republic, by treaties deposited
with the Secretary-General, as listed below, as at 1 January 1993,
the date on which Slovakia assumed responsibility for its
international relations. The succession includes "reservations and
declarations made earlier by Czechoslovakia, as well as objections by
Czechoslovakia to reservations formulated by other treaty-parties",
the text of which can be found in the relevant chapter of the
publication Multilateral treaties deposited with the
Secretary-General1
:
CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS ON 13 FEBRUARY 1946
CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE SPECIALIZED AGENCIES
APPROVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATJONS ON 21 NOVEMBER 1947
In respect of FAO, IBRD, ICAO, IDA, IFC, ILO, IMF, IMO, ITU,
UNESCO, UNIDO, UPU, WHO, WIPO, and WMO
VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS
DONE AT VIENNA ON 18 APRIL 1961
VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS
DONE AT VIENNA ON 24 APRIL 1963
CONVENTION ON SPECIAL MISSIONS
ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS ON 8 DECEMBER 1969
CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUN!SHMENT OF CRIMES AGAINST
INTERNATIONALI,Y PROTECTED PERSONS, INCLUDING DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
ADOPTED B'.l THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OP' THE UNITED NATIONS
ON 14 DECEMBER 1973
VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE REPRESENTATION' OF STATES IN THEl:R
RELATIONS WITH INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OF A UNIVERSAL CHARACTER
CONCLUDED AT VIENNA ON 14 MARCH 1975
(Convention not yet in force)
1 The treaty reference nwnbers (combinations of Roman and Arabie
numerals) indicated with respect to each treaty as listed refer to the relevant
chapter of the publication Multilateral treaties deposited with the
Secretary-General (ST/LEG/SER.E/11) and to the individual treaties within that
chapter.
IV.l
IV.2
IV.3
IV.4
IV.5
IV.6
IV.7
IV.8
IV.9
IV.11
, VI.l
VI,2
VI.5
VI. 6 (a) (b)
VI.7
VI. 8 (a) (b)
VI.13
\
UNITED NATIONS - NATIONS UNIES
-2-
CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS ON 9 DECEMBER 1948
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION, OPENED FOR SIGNATURE AT NEW YORK ON 7 MARCH 1966
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS
ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS ON 16 DECEMBER 1966
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS ON 16 DECEMBER 1966
OPTIONAL PROTOCOL
TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS ON 16 DECEMBER 1966
CONVENTION ON THE NON-APPLICABILITY OF STATUTORY LIMITATIONS
TO WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS ON 26 NOVEMBER 1968
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE
SUPPRESSION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF APARTHEID
ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS ON 30 NOVEMBER 1973
CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS
OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN
ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS ON 18 DECEMBER 1979
CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR
DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT
ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS ON 10 DECEMBER 1984
CONVENTION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS ON 20 NOVEMBER 1989
PROTOCOL AMENDING THE AGREEMENTS, CONVENTIONS AND PROTOCOLS
ON NARCOTIC DRUGS, CONCLUDED AT THE HAGUE ON 23 JANUARY 1912,
AT GENEVA ON 11 FEBRUARY 1925 AND 19 FEBRUARY 1925 AND 13 JOLY 1931,
AT BANGKOK ON 27 NOVEMBER 1931 AND AT GENEVA ON 26 JUNE 1936
SIGNED AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON 11 DECEMBER 1946
INTERNATIONAL OPIUM CONVENTION, THE HAGUE, JANUARY 23RD, 1912
INTERNATIONAL OPIUM CONVENTION,
SIGNED AT GENEVA ON 19 FEBRUARY 1925 AND AMENDED
BY THE PROTOCO~ SIGNED AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON 11 DECEMBER 1946
INTERNATIONAL OPIUM CONVENTION, GENEVA, FEBRUARY 19TH, 1925
AND PROTOCOL, GENEVA, FEBRUARY 19TH, 1925
CONVENTION FOR LIMITING THE MANUFACTURE AND REGULATING
THE DISTRIBUTION OF NARCOTIC DRUGS, SIGNED AT GENEVA ON 13 JOLY 1931
AND AMENDED BY THE PROTOCOL SIGNED AT LAKE SUCCESS,
NEW YORK, ON 11 DECEMBER 1946
CONVENTION FOR LIMITING THE MANUFACTURE AND REGULATING
THE DISTRIBUTION OF NARCOTIC DRUGS, GENEVA, JULY 13TH 1931
AND PROTOCOL OF SIGNATURE, GENEVA, JOLY 13TH, 1931
PROTOCOL BRINGING UNDER INTERNATIONAL CONTROL DRUGS
OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE CONVENTION OF 13 JOLY 1931
FOR LIMITING THE MANUFACTURE AND REGULATING THE DISTRIBUTION
OF NARCOTIC DRUGS, AS AMENDED BY THE PROTOCOL SIGNED AT LAKE SUCCESS,
NEW YORK, ON 11 DECEMBER 1946
SIGNED AT PARIS ON 19 NOVEMBER 1948
..
"VI.15
, VI.16
VI.17
)
VI.18
,_
.,.VI.19
! VII .1
VII.2
VII.3
VII.4
;..,VII.5
--+vn. 6
VII.7 •
VII.8
...
f VII. 9
,_ VII .10
UNITED NATIONS - NATIONS UNIES
-3-
SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DROGS, 1961
DONE AT NEW YORK ON 30 MARCH 1961
CONVENTION ON PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES
CONCLUDED AT VIENNA ON 21 FEBRUARY 1971
PROTOCOL AMENDING.THE SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS, 1961
CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 25 MARCH 1972
SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS, 1961
AS AMENDED BY THE PROTOCOL OF 25 MARCH 1972
AMENDING THE SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS, 1961
DONE AT NEW YORK ON 8 AUGUST 1975
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST ILLICIT TRAFFIC
IN NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES
CONCLODED AT VIENNA ON 20 DECEMBER 1988
PROTOCOL TO AMEND THE CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION
OF THE TRAFFIC IN WOMEN AND CHILDREN, CONCLUDED AT GENEVA
ON 30 SEPTEMBER 1921, AND THE CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF
THE TRAFFIC IN WOMEN OF FULL AGE, CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 11 OCTOBER 1933
SIGNED AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON 12 NOVEMBER 1947
CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE TRAFFIC IN WOMEN AND CHILDREN,
CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 30 SEPTEMBER 1921 AND AMENDED BY THE PROTOCOL
SIGNED AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON 12 NOVEMBER 1947
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE TRAFFIC
IN WOMEN AND CHILDREN, GENEVA, SEPTEMBER 30TH, 1921
CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE TRAFFIC
IN WOMEN OF FULL AGE CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 11 OCTOBER 1933 AND AMENDED BY
THE PROTOCOL SIGNED AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON 12 NOVEMBER 1947
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE
TRAFFIC IN WOMEN OF FULL AGE, GENEVA, OCTOBER 11TH, 1933
PROTOCOL AMENDING THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF
THE WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC, SIGNED AT PARIS ON 18 MAY 1904, AND THE
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC,
SIGNED AT PARIS ON 4 MAY 1910
SIGNED AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON 4 MAY 1949
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC,
SIGNED AT PARIS ON 18 MAY 1904 AND AMENDED BY THE PROTOCOL
SIGNED AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON 4 MAY 1949
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE
"WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC"
SIGNED AT PARIS ON 18 MAY 1904
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE WHITE
SLAVE TRAFFIC, SIGNED AT PARIS ON 4 MAY 1910 AND AMENDED BY THE PROTOCOL
SIGNED AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON 4 MAY 1949
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION
OF THE WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC
SIGNED AT PARIS ON 4 MAY 1910
VII .11 (a)
UNITED NATIONS • NATIONS UNIES
~
-4-
CONVENTION FOR THB SUPPRESSION OF THB TRAFFIC IN PERSONS
AND OF THE EXPLOITATION OF THE PROSTITUTION OF OTHERS
OPENED FOR SIGNATURE AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON 21 MARCH 1950
{b) FINAL PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION
VIII.l
VIII.2
-VIII.4
.VIII .5
VIII. 6
-X. 3
x. 7
(a)
(b)
X.10
XI.A.5
XI.A.7
XI.A.9
OF THE TRAFFIC IN PERSONS AND OF THE EXPLOITATION
OF THE PROSTITUTION OF OTHERS
OPENED FOR SIGNATURE AT LAKE SUCCBSS, NEW YORK, ON 21 MARCH 1950
PROTOCOL TO AMEND THE CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION
OF THE CIRCULATION OF, AND TRAFFIC IN, OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS,
CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 12 SBPTEMBER 1923
SIGNED AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON 12 NOVEMBER 1947
CONVENTION' FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE CIRCULATION OF, AND TRAFFIC IN
OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS, CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 12 SEPTEMBER 1923
AND AMENDED BY THE PROTOCOL
SIGNED AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON 12 NOVEMBER 1947
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE CIRCULATION OF
AND TRAFFIC IN OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS, GBNEVA, SEPTEMBER 12TH, 1923
PROTOCOL AMENDING THE AGREEMENT FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE
CIRCULATION OF OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS, SIGNED AT PARIS ON 4 MAY 1910
SIGNED AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON 4 MAY 1949
AGREEMENT FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE CIRCULATION OF
OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS, SIGNED AT PARIS ON 4 MAY 1910
AND AMENDED BY THE PROTOCOL
SIGNED AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON 4 MAY 1949
AGREEMENT FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE CIRCULATION
OF OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS
SIGNED AT PARIS ON 4 MAY 1910
CONVENTION ON TRANSIT TRADE OF LAND-LOCKED STATES
DONE AT NEW YORK ON 8 JOLY 1965
CONVENTION ON THB LIMITATION PERIOD IN THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS
CONCLUDED AT NEW YORK ON 14 JUNE 1974
PROTOCOL AMENDING THE CONVENTION ON THE LIMITATION PERIOD IN THE
INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS
CONCLUDED AT VIENNA ON 11 APRIL 1980
CONVENTION ON THE LIMITATION PERIOD IN
THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS,
CONCLUDED AT NEW YORK ON 14 JUNE 1974,
AS AMENDED BY THE PROTOCOL OF 11 APRIL 1980
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION
ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS
CONCLUDED AT VIENNA ON 11 APRIL 1980
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION TO FACILITATE THE IMPORTATION
OF COMMERCIAL SAMPLES AND ADVERTISING MATERIAL
DONE AT GENEVA-ON 7 NOVEMBER 1952
ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION CONCERNING CUSTOMS FACILITIES
FOR TOURING, RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF
TOURIST POBLICITY DOCUMENTS AND MATERIAL
DONE AT NEW YORK ON 4 JUNE 1954
CUSTOMS CONVENTION ON CONTAINERS
DONB AT GENEVA ON 18 MAY 1956
~ XI.A.13
_XI.A.14
:
XI.A.15
,_XI .A.16
XI.A.17
XI.B.3
XI.B.7
UNITED NATIONS - NATIONS UNIES
-5-
CUSTOMS CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT OF GOODS
UNDER COVER OF TIR CARNETS (TIR CONVENTION)
DONE AT GENEVA ON 15 JANUARY 1959
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON CUSTOMS TREATMENT OF PALLETS USED
IN INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT
DONE AT GENEVA ON 9 DECEMBER 1960
CUSTOMS CONVENTION ON CONTAINERS, 1972
CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 2 DECEMBER 1972
CUSTOMS CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT OF GOODS
UNDER COVER OF TIR CARNETS (TIR CONVENTION)
CONCLODED AT GENEVA ON 14 NOVEMBBR 1975
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE HARMONIZATION OF
FRONTIER CONTROL OF GOODS
CONCLODED AT GENEVA ON 21 OCTOBER 1982
PROTOCOL ON ROAD SIGNS AND SIGNALS
SIGNED AT GENEVA ON 19 SEPTEMBER 1949
DECLARATION ON THE CONSTRUCTION
OF MAIN INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC ARTERIES
SIGNED AT GENEVA ON 16 SEPTEMBER 1950
'XI.B.10 CONVENTION ON THE TAXATION OF ROAD VEHICLES FOR PRIVATE USE
XI .B.11
XI.B.12
,XI .B.13
XI.B.14
XI.B.15
XI.B.16
XI,B.20
XI.B.21
IN INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC Alll"D PROTOCOL OF SIGNATURE, DONE AT GENEVA ON 18 MAY 1956
CONVENTION ON THE CONTRACT FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE
OF GOODS BY ROAD (CMR.) AND PROTOCOL OF SIGNATURE
DONE AT GENEVA ON 19 MAY 1956
CONVENTION ON THE TAXATION OF ROAD VEHICLES ENGAGED IN
INTERNATIONAL GOODS TRANSPORT
DONE AT GENEVA ON 14 DECEMBER 1956
CONVENTION ON THE TAXATION OF ROAD VEHICLES ENGAGED IN
INTERNATIONAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT
DONE AT GENEVA ON 14 DECEMBER 1956
EUROPEAN AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE
OF DANGEROUS GOODS BY ROAD (ADR)
DONE AT GENEVA ON 30 SEPTEMBER 1957
EUROPEAN AGREEMENT ON ROAD MARKINGS
DONE AT GENEVA ON 13 DECEMBER 1957
AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE ADOPTION OF UNIFORM CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL AND RECIPROCAL RECOGNITION OF APPROVAL
FOR MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT AND PARTS
DONE AT GENEVA ON 20 MARCH 1958
With the application of the following regulations:
Nos. l to 14, 16 to 21, 23 to 26, 28, 30, 32 to 64, 67, 71,
73 to 75, 78, 79, 81, 83 to 86 and 91.
CONVENTLON ON ROAD SIGNS AND SIGNALS
CONCLODBD AT VIENNA ON 8 NOVEMBBR 1968
1970 EUROPEAN AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE WORK OF CREWS
OF VEHICLES ENGAGED IN INTERNATIONAL ROAD TRANSPORT (AETR)
CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 1 JOLY 1970
"'XI .B. 22
,._XI.B.23
~
. XI .B. 24
XI.B.25
XI.B.26
i
XI.B.28
'XI.C.3
XI.D.3
XI.E.2
:i..,
..
~ XII.5
XII.6
♦
XII.7
~
.. XIV.3
XVI.l
,.
XVI.2
'f
UNITED NATIONS - NATIONS UNIES
-6-
AGREEMENT ON THE INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE OF PERISHABLE FOODSTUFFS
AND ON THE SPECIAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED FOR SUCH CARRIAGE (ATP)
CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 1 SEPTEMBER 1970
EUROPEAN AGREEMENT SUPPLEMENTING THE CONVENTION ON ROAD TRAFFIC
OPENED FOR SIGNATURE AT VIENNA ON 8 NOVEMBER 1968
CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 1 MAY 1971
EUROPEAN AGREEMENT SUPPLEMENTING THE CONVENTION
ON ROAD SIGNS AND SIGNALS
OPENED FOR SIGNATURE AT VIENNA ON 8 NOVEMBER 1968
CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 1 MAY 1971
PROTOCOL ON ROAD MARKINGS, ADDITIONAL TO THE,EUROPEAN AGREEMENT
SUPPLEMENTING THE CONVENTION ON ROAD SIGNS AND SIGNALS
OPENBD FOR SIGNATURE AT VIENNA ON 8 NOVEMBER 1968
CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 1 MARCH 1973
CONVENTION ON THE CONTRACT FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE
OF PASSENGERS AND LUGGAGE BY ROAD (CVR)
CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 1 MARCH 1973
(Convention not yet in force)
EUROPEAN AGREEMENT ON MAIN INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC ARTERIES (AGR)
CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 15 NOVEMBER 1975
EUROPEAN AGREEMENT ON MAIN INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY LINES (AGC)
CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 31 MAY 1985
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA, 1978
CONCLUDED AT HAMBURG ON 31 MARCH 1978
(Convention only signed by Czechoslovakia)
EUROPEAN AGREEMENT ON IMPORTANT INTERNATIONAL COMBINED
TRANSPORT LINES AND RELATED INSTALLATIONS (AGTC)
CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 1 FEBRUARY 1991
(Convention only signed by Czechoslovakia)
CONVENTION ON THE MEASUREMENT OF INLAND NAVIGATION VESSELS
CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 15 FEBRUARY 1966
CONVENTION ON THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR LINER CONFERENCES
CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 6 APRIL 1974
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON CONDITIONS FOR REGISTRATION OF SHIPS
CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 7 FEBRUARY 1986
(Convention only signed by Czechoslovakia)
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF PERFORMERS,
PRODUCERS OF PHONOGRAMS AND BROADCASTING ORGANIZATIONS
DONE AT ROME ON 26 OCTOBER 1961
CONVENTION ON THE POLITICAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN
OPENED FOR SIGNATURE AT NEW YORK ON 31 MARCH 1953
CONVENTION ON THE NATIONALITY OF MARRIED WOMEN
DONE AT NEW YORK ON 20 FEBRUARY 1957
...
_,XVI.3
XVIII.3
XVIII.4
XVIII.5
"--
~XX.l
XXI.l
{-
XXI. 2
XXI.4
XXI.6
,XXII.l
XXII.2
..
XXIII. l
'.XXIII.2
XXIII.3
'xxiv .1
XXVI.l
UNITED NATIONS - NATIONS UNIES
-7-
CONVENTION ON CONSENT TO MARRIAGE, MINIMUM AGE FOR MARRIAGE
AND REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGES
OPENED FOR SIGNATURE AT NEW YORK ON 10 DECEMBER 1962
SLAVERY CONVENTION, GENEVA, SEPTEMBER 25TH, 1926
SUPPLEMENTARY CONVENTION ON THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY,
THE SLAVE TRADE AND INSTITUTIONS AND PRACTICES SIMILAR TO SLAVERY
DONE AT THE EUROPEAN OFFICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS
AT GENEVA ON 7 SEPTEMBER 1956
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION AGAINST THE TAKING OF HOSTAGES
ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF THE UNITED NATIONS ON 17 DECEMBER 1979
CONVENTION ON THE RECOVERY ABROAD OF MAINTENANCE
DONE AT NEW YORK ON 20 JUNE 1956
CONVENTION ON THE TERRITORIAL SEA AND THE CONTIGUOUS ZONE
DONE AT GENEVA ON 29 APRIL 1958
CONVENTION ON THE HIGH SEAS
DONE AT GENEVA ON 29 APRIL 1958
CONVENTION ON THE CONTINENTAL SHELF
DONE AT GENEVA ON 29 APRIL 1958
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
CONCLUDED AT MONTEGO BAY, JAMAICA, ON 10 DECEMBER 1982
(Convention only signed by Czechoslovakia and not yet in force)
CONVENTION ON THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT
OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS
DONE AT NEW YORK ON 10 JUNE 1958
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION
DONE AT GENEVA ON 21 APRIL 1961
VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES
CONCLUDED AT VIENNA ON 23 MAY 1969
VIENNA CONVENTION ON SUCCESSION OF STATES
IN RESPECT OF TREATIES
CONCLUDED AT VIENNA ON 23 AUGUST 1978
{Convention only signed by Czechoslovakia and not yet in force}
VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES BETWEEN STATES
AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
OR BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
CONCLUDED AT VIENNA ON 21 MARCH 1986
(Convention not yet in force)
CONVENTION ON REGISTRATION OF OBJECTS LAUNCHED INTO OUTER SPACE
ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSBMBLY
OF THE UNITED NATIONS ON 12 NOVEMBER 1974
CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF MILITARY OR
ANY OTHER HOSTILE USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES
ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF THE UNITED NATIONS ON 10 DECEMBER 1976
..,-XXVI.2
~XXVII.l
.,.
(a)·
(b)
(c)
XXVII.2
(a)
,.,X XVII.3
XXVII.4
~
'!èXVIII. 1 ( a)
(b)
.3=I. 6
·II.14 (a) (b)
l •
II.15
-II, 16
UNITED NATIONS 8l NATIONS UNIES
~
-8-
CONVENTION ON PROHIBITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF CERTAIN
CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS WHICH MAY BE DEEMED TO BE EXCESSIVELY INJURIOUS
ORTO HAVE INDISCRIMINATE EFFECTS (AND PROTOCOLS)
CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 10 OCTOBER 1980
CONVENTION ON LONG-RANGE TRANSBOUNDARY AIR POLLUTION
CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 13 NOVEMBER 1979
PROTOCOL TO THE 1979 CONVENTION ON
LONG-RANGE TRANSBOUNDARY AIR POLLUTION ON LONG-TERM FINANCING
OF THE CO-OPERATIVE PROGRAMME FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION
OF THE LONG-RANGE TRANSMISSION OF AIR POLLUTANTS IN EUROPE (EMEP)
CONCLUDED AT GENEVA ON 28 SEPTEMBER 1984
PROTOCOL TO THE 1979 CONVENTION ON LONG-RANGE TRANSBOUNDARY
AIR POLLUTION ON THE REDUCTION OF SULPHUR EMISSIONS
OR THEIR TRANSBOUNDARY FLUXES BY AT LEAST 30 PERCENT
CONCLUDED AT HELSINKI ON 8 JOLY 1985
PROTOCOL TO THE 1979 CONVENTION ON LONG-RANGE TRANSBOUNDARY
AIR POLLUTION CONCERNING THE CONTROL OF EMISSIONS
OF NITROGEN OXIDES OR THEIR TRANSBOUNDARY FLUXES
CONCLUDEO AT SOFIA ON 31 OCTOBER 1988
VIENNA CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE OZONE LAYER
CONCLUDED AT VIENNA ON 22 MARCH 1985
MONTREAL PROTOCOL ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE THE OZONE LAYER
CONCLUDED AT MONTREAL ON 16 SEPTEMBER 1987
BASEL CONVENTION ON THE CONTROL OF TRANSBOUNDARY
MOVEMENTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES AND THEIR DISPOSAL
CONCLUDED AT BASEL ON 22 MARCH 1989
CONVENTION ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN A
TRANSBOUNDARY CONTEXT
CONCLUDED AT ESPOO (FINLAND) ON 25 FEBRUARY 1991
(Convention only signed by Czechoslovakia and not yet in force)
MULTILATERAL CONVENTION FOR THE AVOIDANCE
OF DOUBLE TAXATION OF COPYRIGHT ROYALTIES
CONCLUDED AT MADRID ON 13 DECEMBER 1979
(Convention not yet in force)
ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL
CONCLUDED AT MADRID ON 13 DECEMBER 1979
(Protocol not yet in force)
PROTOCOL ON ARBITRATION CLAUSES, GENEVA, SEPTEMBER 24th, 1923
CONVENTION ON THE EXECUTION OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS
GENEVA, SEPTEMBER 26th, 1927
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF
COUNTERFEITING CURRENCY AND PROTOCOL
GENEVA, APRIL 20th, 1929
OPTIONAL PROTOCOL CONCERNING THE SUPPRESSION OF
COüNTERFEITING CURRENCY, GENEVA, APRIL 20th, 1929
CONVENTION AND STATUTE ON FREEDOM OF TRANSIT
BARCELONA, APRIL 20th, 1921
,.-II.17
'1
II.18
1'
II.19
'-II.20
....
II.22
,..
UNITED NATIONS - NATIONS UNIES
-9-
CONVENTION AND STATUTE ON THE REGIME OF NAVIGABLE
WATERWAYS OF INTERNATIONAL CONCERN
BARCELONA, APRIL 20th, 1921
ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION ON THE REGIME OF
NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS OF INTERNATIONAL CONCERN
BARCELONA, APRIL 20th, 1921
DECLARATION RECOGNIZING THE RIGHT TO A FLAG
OF STATES HAVING NO SEA-COAST
BARCELONA, APRIL 20th, 1921
CONVENTION AND STATUTE ON THE INTERNATIONAL REGIME OF MARITIME PORTS
GENEVA, DECEMBER 9th, 1923
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION RELATING TO THE SIMPLIFICATION
OF CUSTOMS FORMALITIES
GENEVA, NOVEMBER 3rd, 1923
1 November 1993
CO:R,RESPQNDENCE UNIT
ENGLISH AND SPANISH
AFGHANISTAN
..,.- ANGOLA
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
' ARMENIA
AUSTRALIA
.., AUSTRIA
AZERBAIJAN
BAHAMAS
.,._ BAHRAIN
BANGLADESH
BARBADOS
BELARUS
BELIZE
~ BHUTAN
BOLIVIA
.., BOSNIA AND
HERZEGOVINA
BOTSWANA
BRAZIL
BRUNEI DARUSSALAM
i, BULGARIA
CANADA
CHILE
:-- CHINA
COLOMBIA
COSTA RICA
CROATIA
,- CUBA
CYPRUS
CZECH REPUBLIC
DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S
.. REPUBLIC OF KOREA
"' DENMARK
DOMINICA
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
ECUADOR
:., EGYPT
EL SALVADOR
ERITREA
142 MEMBER STATES plus 4 NON-MEMBERS
ESTONIA
ETHIOPIA
FIJI
FINLAND
GAMBIA
GEORGIA
GERMANY
GHANA
GREECE
GRENADA
GUATEMALA
GUYANA
HONDURAS
HUNGARY
!CELANO
INDIA
INOONESIA
IRAN
IRAQ
IRELAND
ISRAEL
JAMAICA
JAPAN
JORDAN
KAZAKHSTAN
KENYA
KUWAIT
KYRGYZSTAN
LATVIA
LESOTHO
LIBERIA
LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA
LIECHTENSTEIN
LITHUANIA
MALAWI
MALAYSIA
MALDIVES
MALTA
MARSHALL ISLANDS
MAURITIUS
MEXICO
MICRONESIA
MONGOLIA
MOZAMBIQUE
MYANMAR
NAMIBIA
NEPAL
NETHERLANDS
NEW ZEALAND
NICARAGUA
NIGERIA
NORWAY
OMAN
PAKISTAN
PANAMA
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
PERU
PHILIPPINES
POLAND
PORTUGAL
QATAR
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
SAINT KITTS AND
NEVIS
SAINT LUCIA
SAINT VINCENT AND
THE GRENADINES
SAMOA
SAUD! ARABIA
SEYCHELLES
SIERRA LEONE
SINGAPORE
SLOVAKIA
SLOVENIA
SOLOMON ISLANDS
SOMALIA
INFORMATION COPY SENT TO:
ALSO SENT TO:
SOUTH AFRICA
SPAIN
SRI LANKA
SUDAN
SURINAME
SWAZILAND
SWEDEN
SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
TAJIKISTAN
THAILAND
THE FORMER YUGOSLAV
REPUBLIC OF MACEDONia
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
TURKEY
TURKMENISTAN
UGANDA
UKRAINE
UNITED ARAS EMIRATES
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED REPUBLIC
OF TANZANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERIL
URUGUAY
UZBEKISTAN
VANUATU
VENEZUELA
VIET NAM
YEMEN
YUGOSLAVIA
ZAMBIA
ZIMBABWE
NON-MEMBER STATES
KIRIBATI
NAURU
TONGA
TUVALU
...
..,..
ALSO SENT TO:
The Chief, Distribution Section, Publishing Division, DCS, Room NL-316 (65 copies, English and
French, -for distribution· to the· Information Centres) .'-· ·.·' · '"· .: · · ' · ·. · • ··,. · · · ·
Bureau de Liason Juridique, Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland
The Law Librarian, UNCITRAL, Vienna International Centre, P.O. Box 500, A-1400 Vienna,
Austria
Monsieur le Greffier de la Cour internationale de Justice, Palais de la Paix, 2517 KJ La Haye,
Netherlands
The Director, General Legal Division, Room S-3430 A
The Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs, Room S-3427C
The Chief, Treaty Section, Office of Legal Affairs, Room S-3200
Professer David L. Harris, LL.M., Ph.D., Editer, Index of Multilateral Treaties, Unîversity of
Nottingham, Treaty Centre, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom
Professer Igor 1. Kavass, Legal Information Center, School of Law, Vanderbilt University,
Nashville, Tennessee 37240
Marilou M. Righini, International Legal Materials, American Society of International Law, 2223
Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20008-2864
UN/SA Collection, Office.B.127, United Nations Office, Geneva, Switzerland
LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS
1 i,__;:
FAO FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
GATT CONTRACTING PARTIES TO THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
IAEA INTERNATIONAL·ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY· -~,.. .., -·"'•" ,., .. , ·
ICAO INTERNATIONAL CIVIL--AVIATION ORGANIZATION
IFAD INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR_ AGRICULTURAL ,DEVELQPMENT, ....
ILO INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION
IMF INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
IMO INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION
ITU INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION 'UNION "-·· · ·"·· · >·: / I,_, '. . .i 1 !:,,,.
UNESCO .... UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
UNIDO UNITED NATIONS.INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION
UPU UNIVE~$AL -~OST~,.~ION L- .::,·, ,~ .... , •• ·.-., ,, _, _ ,.
WB WORLD BANK .. , .
WHO WORLD'HEALTH,,ORGÀNIZATION ,.I '' ,, -:,,,.,,; ,·,:· .. ,, ~,- l.'-~t•
WIPO WORLD'i'INTELLECTUAL': PROPÈRTY- ORGANIZATION
WMO WORLD METEOROLOGICAL·ORGANIZATION., f-;, .c.,.-__ ,,il,, ;.,, __ , ... .. 1 .) .. c1,1:
EEC EUROPEAN ECONOMIC,COMMUNITY: .' · ... -.. ,: :,:,::·,,
i,J,:_,.,.,_/7i.,,:,:,,·/I 'P-";, ,,~~~• ,-c... ·,
.•.-•::,~., ...... ,_· -~· .. ·.
~ ·J•._=.,:, :_:,_-:1.,·:, .. 1·.\,; _,:.: ·,; ._• ] > ,· L11· _._._· j'jlLI'.· '-~ 1..·_1'1·
, ~ 1 , 1 ,t \ J .", ,, t.,, l
. '
• • -. • • • • - • • • ~· • • r • •• •
,, I""