Partijen en gegevens

The Government of Israel accedes to the Protocol subject to the same statements and reservations made at the time of ratifying the Convention [relating to the Status of Refugees, done at Geneva on 28 July 1951], in accordance with the provisions of article VII (2) of the Protocol.

The instrument of accession stipulates that the Government of Turkey maintains the provisions of the declaration made under section B of article 1 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, done at Geneva on 28 July 1951, according to which it applies the Convention only to persons who have become refugees as a result of events occurring in Europe, and also the reservation clause made upon ratification of the Convention to the effect that no provision of this Convention may be interpreted as granting to refugees greater rights than those accorded to Turkish citizens in Turkey.

… the provisions of Article IV of the Protocol shall not be applicable to the United Republic of Tanzania except with the explicit consent of the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania.

Whereas the Instrument of Accession contained reservations, inter alia, to Article 7, paragraph 2; Article 8; Article 12, paragraph 1; Article 24, paragraph 1(b) and paragraph 3; Article 25 and Article 28, paragraph 1 in the Convention.

Now therefore the Government of the Republic of Finland do hereby withdraw the said reservations, while the general reservation concerning nationals of Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden and the reservation on Article 24, paragraph 3, will remain.

… the Government of Ghana does not consider itself bound by Article IV of the Protocol regarding the settlement of dispute.

With the following reservations in respect of the application, in accordance with article I of the Protocol, of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, done at New York on 28 July 1951:

The United States of America construes Article 29 of the Convention as applying only to refugees who are resident in the United States and reserves the right to tax refugees who are not residents of the United States in accordance with its general rules relating to non-resident aliens.

The United States of America accepts the obligation of paragraph 1 (b) of Article 24 of the Convention except insofar as that paragraph may conflict in certain instances with any provision of title II (old age, survivors’ and disability insurance) or title XVIII (hospital and medical insurance for the aged) of the Social Security Act. As to any such provision, the United States will accord to refugees lawfully staying in its territory treatment no less favorable than is accorded aliens generally in the same circumstances.

.

‛ Refugees and their dependants would normally be subject to the same laws and regulations relating generally to the employment of non-Bahamians within the Commonwealth of the Bahama Islands, so long as they have not acquired Bahamian status. ’

[S]ubject to the following reservations made under the terms of Article 42, paragraph 1, of the Convention and Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Protocol:

The provisions of articles 8, 9, 17(2) and 22(1) of the Convention are recognized only as recommendations and not as legally binding obligations.

The Protocol is accepted with the exception of article IV.

The Government of the French Republic declares that it has decided to extend the obligations that it assumes pursuant to the Convention of 28 July 1951, in accordance with paragraph 2, Section B of article 1 of the said Convention, and, accordingly, will apply the Protocol of 31 January 1967 without any geographical limitation.

In accordance with article VII (2), the reservations to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951 by the Government of Malta on deposit of its instrument of accession on 17 June 1971, pursuant to article 42 of the said Convention, are applicable in relation to its obligations under the present Protocol.

The Government of Australia will not extend the provisions of the Protocol to Papua/New Guinea.

The Government of the Somali Democratic Republic acceded to the Convention and Protocol on the understanding that nothing in the said Convention or Protocol will be construed to prejudice or adversely affect the national status, or political aspiration of displaced people from Somali Territories under alien domination.

It is in this spirit, that the Somali Democratic Republic will commit itself to respect the terms and provisions of the said Convention and Protocol.

‛ … The Provisional Military Government of Socialist Ethiopia wishes to place on record its objection to the above mentioned declaration and that it does not recognize it as valid on the ground that there are no Somali territories under alien domination. ’

The Government of the Kingdom of Swaziland deems it essential to draw attention to the accession herewith as a Member of the United Nations, and not as a Party to the said Convention by reason of succession or otherwise.

… the Republic of Suriname did not succeed to the reservations formulated on 29 July 1951 by the Netherlands when the Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees were extended to Suriname.

For the settlement of any dispute between States Parties, recourse may be had to the International Court of Justice only with the prior agreement of the Rwandese Republic.

The Government of Angola, in accordance with article VII, paragraph 1, declares that it does not consider itself bound by article IV of the Protocol, concerning settlement of disputes relating to the interpretation of the Protocol.

[The Government of Peru] hereby expressly declares, with reference to the provisions of article I, paragraph 1, and article II of the aforementioned Protocol, that compliance with the obligations undertake by virtue of the act of accession to that instrument shall be ensured by the Peruvian State using the means at its disposal, and the Government of Peru shall endeavour in all cases to co-operate as far as possible with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

The Republic of Guatemala accedes to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its Protocol, with the reservation that it will not apply provisions of those instruments in respect of which the Convention allows reservations if those provisions contravene constitutional precepts in Guatemala or norms of public order under domestic law.

The Expression ‘treatment as favourable as possible’ in all articles of the Convention and of the Protocol in which the expression is used should be interpreted as not including rights which, under law or treaty, the Republic of Guatemala has accorded or is according to nationals of the Central American countries or of other countries with which it has concluded or is entering into agreements of a regional nature.

The Federal Republic of Germany views the reservation made by Guatemala as being worded in such general terms that its application could conceivably nullify the provisions of the Convention and the Protocol. Consequently this reservation cannot be accepted.

‛ The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the opinion that a reservation phrased in such general terms and referring to the domestic law only is undesirable, since its scope is not entirely clear. ’

In implementing the provisions of the Protocol which confer on refugees the most favourable treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign country, it shall be understood that such treatment does not include any rights and benefits which Venezuela has granted or may grant regarding entry into or sojourn in Venezuela territory to nationals of countries with which Venezuela has concluded regional or subregional integration, customs, economic or political agreements.

The instrument of accession also contains a reservation in respect of article IV.

In all cases where the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees grants to refugees the most favorable treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign country, this provision shall not be interpreted as involving the régime accorded to nationals of countries with which Cape Verde has concluded regional customs, economic or political agreements.

The Government of the Republic of Malawi reiterates its declaration on recognition as compulsory the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice made on 12 December 1966 in conformity with Article 36 paragraph 2 of the Statute of the Court. In this respect, the Government of the Republic of Malawi regards the phrase ‘settled by other means’ in Article 38 of the Convention and Article IV of the Protocol to be those means stipulated in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations. ’

‛ The Government of the Republic of Honduras does not consider itself bound by those articles of the Convention to which it has entered reservations. ’

The Republic of Korea declares, pursuant to Article 7 of the Protocol, that is not bound by Article 7 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which provides for the exemption of refugees from legislative reciprocity after fulfilling the condition of three years‘ residence in the territory of the Contracting States.

Withdrawal of reservation in respect of Article 7 made upon accession.

In accordance with paragraph 2 of the article VII of the [said Protocol], the Republic of Latvia declares that the reservations made in accordance with article 41 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951 are applicable in relation to the obligations under the Protocol. In accordance with paragraph 1 of article 42 of the [said Convention], the Republic of Latvia declares that it does not consider itself bound by the article 8 and the article 34 of the Convention. In accordance with paragraph 1 of the article 42 of the [said Convention], the Republic of Latvia, in respect of the article 26 of the Convention, reserves the right to designate the place or places of residence of the refugees whenever considerations of national security or public order so require.

In accordance with paragraph 1 of the article 42 of the [said Convention], the Republic of Latvia declares that the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the article 17and article 24 of the Convention it considers as recommendations and not legal obligations.

In accordance with paragraph 1 of the article 42 of the [said Convention], the Republic of Latvia declares that in all cases where the Convention grants to refugees the most favourable treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign country, this provision shall not be interpreted by the Government of the Republic of Latvia as necessarily involving the regime accorded to nationals of countries with which the Republic of Latvia had concluded regional customs, economic, political or social security agreements.

In conformity with Article VII and I of the Protocol, the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste accedes to the Protocol, with the understanding that it has made reservations to Articles 16 (2), 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the 28 July, 1951.

In accordance with the provisions of Article VII paragraph 1 of the aforesaid Protocol, however, the Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines makes a reservation with respect to Articles IV of the Protocol that, for the submission of any dispute in terms of that 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.

Subject to the following reservation: in all cases where this Convention grants to refugees the most favourable treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign country, this provision shall not be interpreted as necessarily involving the régime accorded to nationals of countries with which the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has concluded regional, customs, economic or political agreements.

In accordance with article VII of the Protocol, all reservations made by the Kingdom of the Netherlands upon signature and ratification of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which was signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951, are regarded to apply to the obligations resulting from the Protocol.

This signature is appended subject to the reservation that in all cases where this Convention grants to refugees the most favourable treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign country this provision shall not be interpreted as involving the régime accorded to nationals of countries with which the Netherlands has concluded regional, customs, economic or political agreements.