Partijen en gegevens

With reference to the accession of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria on 8 November 1988 to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, concluded on 23 May 1969, the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls attention to the objections it formulated upon its accession to the Convention.

In conformity with the terms of the objections, the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to any reservation, excluding the settlement of disputes concerning the application or the interpretation of articles 53 and 64 before the International Court of Justice, contained in article 66, paragraph a, of the Convention, such as the reservation formulated by Algeria.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands re-iterates that the absence of treaty relations between itself and Algeria in respect of the articles 53 and 64 of the Convention will not in any way impair the duty of that State to fulfill any obligation embodied in those provisions to which it is subject under international law independent of the Convention.

The Federal Republic of Germany rejects the reservation made by the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria with regard to article 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention. In this connection it wishes to point out once more that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers Articles 53 and 64 to be inextricably linked to Article 66(a).

‛ The Government of the United Kingdom wish in this context to recall their declaration of 5 June 1987 (in respect of the accession of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) which in accordance with its terms applies to the reservations mentioned above, and will similarly apply to any like reservations which any other State may formulate. ’

‛ The application of this Convention to territories whose sovereignty is a subject of dispute between two or more States, whether or not they are parties to it, cannot be deemed to imply a modification, renunciation or abandonment of the positions heretofore maintained by each of them. ’

The People's Republic of Bulgaria does not consider itself bound by the provision of Article 66, paragraph a) of the Convention, according to which any one of the parties to a dispute concerning the application or the interpretation of Article 53 or 64 may, by a written application, submit it to the International Court of Justice for a decision unless the parties by common consent agree to submit the dispute to arbitration. The Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria status that for the submission of such a dispute to the International Court of Justice for a decision, the preliminary consent of all parties to the dispute is needed.

The Federal Republic of Germany rejects the reservations made by the People's Republic of Bulgaria with regard to Article 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention. In this connection it wishes to point out once more that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers Articles 53 and 64 to be inextricably linked to Article 66(a).

[The Government of the Netherlands] recalls attention to its objections formulated upon its accession to the Convention on 9 April 1985. In conformity with the terms of the objections the Kingdom of the Netherlands must be deemed to have objected to the reservations, excluding wholly or in part the procedures for the settlement of disputes, contained in Article 66 of the Convention, as formulated by Bulgaria as from the date of their respective accession.

Accordingly, the treaty relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Hungary and Czechoslovakia do not include any of the provisions contained in Part V of the Convention, whereas the treaty relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Bulgaria do not include the provisions of the Article 53 and 64 of the Convention.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands re-iterates that the absence of treaty relations between itself and the above-mentioned States in respect of (parts of) Part V of the Convention will not in any way impair the duty of those States to fulfill any obligation embodied in those provisions to which they are subject under international law independent of the Convention. ’

The People's Republic of Bulgaria considers it necessary to underline that Article 81 and 83 of the Convention, which preclude a number of States from becoming parties to it, are of an unjustifiably restrictive character. These provisions are incompatible with the very nature of the Convention, which is of a universal character and should be open for accession by all States.

In acceding to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Government of Canada declares its understanding that nothing in article 66 of the Convention is intended to exclude the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice where such jurisdiction exists under the provisions of any treaty in force binding the parties with regard to the settlement of disputes. In relation to states parties to the Vienna Convention which accept as compulsory the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the Government of Canada declares that it does not regard the provisions of article 66 of the Vienna Convention as providing ‘some other method of peaceful settlement’ within the meaning of paragraph 2(a) of the declaration of the Government of Canada accepting as compulsory the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice which was deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on April 7, 1970.

With regard to article 25, Colombia formulates the reservation that the Political Constitution of Colombia does not recognize the provisional application of treaties; it is the responsibility of the National Congress to approve or disapprove any treaties and conventions which the Government concludes with other States or with international legal entities.

As between itself and any State which formulates, wholly or in part, a reservation relating to the provisions of article 66 of the Convention concerning the compulsory settlement of certain disputes, Denmark will not consider itself bound by those provisions of Part V of the Convention, according to which the procedures for settlement set forth in article 66 are not to apply in the event of reservations formulated by other States.

The German Democratic Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 66 of the Convention.

In order to submit a dispute concerning the application or the interpretation of article 53 or 64 to the International Court of Justice for a decision or to submit a dispute on the application or interpretation of any other Articles of Part V of the Convention to the Conciliation Commission for consideration it shall be necessary in every single case to have the consent of all Parties to the dispute. The members of the Conciliation Commission shall be appointed jointly by the Parties to the dispute.

The German Democratic Republic declares that it reserves itself the right to take measures to protect its interests in the case that other States would not comply with the provisions of the Convention.

The German Democratic Republic holds the view that the provisions of articles 81 and 83 of the Convention are in contradiction to the principle according to which any State, the policy of which is guided by the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, has the right to become a Party to Conventions affecting the interests of all States.

… [the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands] with reference to the accession of the German Democratic Republic to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, concluded on 23 May 1969, recalls attention to its objections formulated upon its accession to the above-mentioned Convention on 9 April 1985.

In conformity with the terms of the objections the Kingdom of the Netherlands must be deemed to have objected to the reservations, excluding wholly or in part the procedures for the settlement of disputes, contained in Article 66, as formulated by the above-mentioned States as from the date of their respective accession. Accordingly, the treaty relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the German Democratic Republic do not include any of the provisions contained in Part V of the Convention.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands re-iterates that the absence of treaty relations between it and the above-mentioned States in respect of Part V of the Convention will not in any way impair the duty of those States to fulfill any obligation embodied in those provisions to which they are subject under international law independent of the Convention. ’

The Arab Republic of Egypt does not consider itself bound by Part V of the Convention vis-à-vis States which formulate reservations concerning the procedures for judicial settlement and compulsory arbitration set forth in article 66 and in the Annex to the Convention, and it rejects reservations made to the provisions of Part V of the Convention.

Finland declares its understanding that nothing in paragraph 2 of article 7 of the Convention is intended to modify any provisions of internal law in force in any Contracting State concerning competence to conclude treaties. Under the Constitution of Finland the competence to conclude treaties is given to the President of the Republic, who also decides on the issuance of full powers to the Head of Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Finland also declares that as to its relation with any State which has made or makes a reservation to the effect that this State will not be bound by some or all of the provisions of article 66, Finland will consider itself bound neither by those procedural provisions nor by the substantive provisions of part V of the Convention to which the procedures provided for in article 66 do not apply as a result of the said reservation.

The Hungarian People's Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and declares that submission of a dispute concerning the application or the interpretation of Article 53 or 64 to the International Court of Justice for a decision or submission of a dispute concerning the application or the interpretation of any articles in Part V of the Convention to a conciliation commission for consideration shall be subject to the consent of all the parties to the dispute and that the conciliators constituting the conciliation commission shall have been nominated exclusively with the common consent of the parties to the dispute.

The Federal Republic of Germany rejects the reservations made by the Hungarian People's Republic with regard to Article 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention. In this connection it wishes to point out once more that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers Articles 53 and 64 to be inextricably linked to Article 66(a).

[The Government of the Netherlands] recalls attention to its objections formulated upon its accession to the Convention on 9 April 1985. In conformity with the terms of the objections the Kingdom of the Netherlands must be deemed to have objected to the reservations, excluding wholly or in part the procedures for the settlement of disputes, contained in Article 66 of the Convention, as formulated by Hungary as from the date of their respective accession.

Accordingly, the treaty relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Hungary and Czechoslovakia do not include any of the provisions contained in Part V of the Convention, whereas the treaty relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Bulgaria do not include the provisions of the Article 53 and 64 of the Convention.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands re-iterates that the absence of treaty relations between itself and the above-mentioned States in respect of (parts of) Part V of the Convention will not in any way impair the duty of those States to fulfill any obligation embodied in those provisions to which they are subject under international law independent of the Convention. ’

‛ … the participation of Kuwait in this Convention does not mean in any way recognition of Israel by the Government of the State of Kuwait and that furthermore, no treaty relations will arise between the State of Kuwait and Israel. ’

The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not regard the provisions of Article 66(b) of the Convention as providing ‘some other method of peaceful settlement’ within the meaning of the declaration of the Kingdom of the Netherlands accepting as compulsory the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice which was deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 1 August 1956.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the opinion that the provisions regarding the settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66 of the Convention, are an important part of the Convention and that they cannot be separated from the substantive rules with which they are connected. Consequently, the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers it necessary to object to any reservation which is made by another State and whose aim is to exclude the application, wholly or in part, of the provisions regarding the settlement of disputes. While not objecting to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State, the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that their treaty relations will not include the provisions of Part V of the Convention with regard to which the application of the procedures regarding the settlement of disputes, as laid down in Article 66, wholly or in part is excluded.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the absence of treaty relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and such a State with regard to all or certain provisions of Part V will not in any way impair the duty of the latter to fulfill any obligation embodied in those provisions to which it is subject under international law independently of the Convention.

For the reasons set out above, the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservation of the Syrian Arab Republic, according to which its accession to the Convention shall not include the Annex, and to the reservation of Tunisia, according to which the submission to the International Court of Justice of a dispute referred to in Article 66(a) requires the consent of all parties thereto. Accordingly, the treaty relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Syrian Arab Republic will not include the provisions to which the conciliation procedure in the Annex applies and the treaty relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Tunisia will not include Articles 53 and 64 of the Convention.

… with reference to the accession of Mongolia on 16 May 1988 to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, concluded on 23 May 1969, recalls attention to the objections of the Kingdom of the Netherlands formulated upon its accession to the Convention.

In conformity with the terms of the objections, the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to any reservation, excluding the procedures regarding the settlement of disputes, contained in Article 66 of the Convention, such as reservation formulated by Mongolia.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands re-iterates that the absence of treaty relations between itself and Mongolia in respect of Part V of the Convention will not in any way impair the duty of that State to fulfill any obligation embodied in those provisions to which it is subject under international law independent of the Convention. ’

The Federal Republic of Germany rejects the reservation made by the Mongolian People's Republic with regard to Article 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention. In this connection it wishes to point out once more that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers Articles 53 and 64 to be inextricably linked to Article 66(a).

… The New Zealand Government objects to the reservation entered by the Government of Syria to the obligatory conciliation contained in the Annex to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and does not accept the entry into force of the Convention as between New Zealand and Syria.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and declares that, in order for any dispute among the Contracting Parties concerning the application or the interpretation of articles 53 or 64 to be submitted to the International Court of Justice for a decision, or for any dispute concerning the application or interpretation of any other articles in Part V of the Convention to be submitted for consideration by the Conciliation Commission, the consent of all the parties to the dispute is required in each separate case, and that the conciliators constituting the Conciliation Commission may only be persons appointed by the parties to the dispute by common consent.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will consider that it is not obligated by the provisions of article 20, paragraph 3 or of article 45 (b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, since they are contrary to established international practice.

… [the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands] with reference to the accession of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, concluded on 23 May 1969, recalls attention to its objections formulated upon its accession to the above-mentioned Convention on 9 April 1985.

In conformity with the terms of the objections the Kingdom of the Netherlands must be deemed to have objected to the reservations, excluding wholly or in part the procedures for the settlement of disputes, contained in Article 66, as formulated by the above-mentioned States as from the date of their respective accession. Accordingly, the treaty relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic do not include any of the provisions contained in Part V of the Convention.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands re-iterates that the absence of treaty relations between it and the above-mentioned States in respect of Part V of the Convention will not in any way impair the duty of those States to fulfill any obligation embodied in those provisions to which they are subject under international law independent of the Convention. ’

‛ The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that it reserves the right to take any measures to safeguard its interests in the event of the non-observance by other States of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. ’

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and declares that, in order for any dispute among the Contracting Parties concerning the application or the interpretation of articles 53 or 64 to be submitted to the International Court of Justice for a decision, or for any dispute concerning the application or interpretation of any other articles in Part V of the Convention to be submitted for consideration by the Conciliation Commission, the consent of all the parties to the dispute is required in each separate case, and that the conciliators constituting the Conciliation Commission may only be persons appointed by the parties to the dispute by common consent.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will consider that it is not obligated by the provisions of article 20, paragraph 3 or of article 45 (b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, since they are contrary to established international practice.

‛ The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that it reserves the right to take any measures to safeguard its interests in the event of the non-observance by other States of the provisions of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties. ’

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland object to the reservation entered by the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by which it rejects the application of Article 66 of the Convention. Article 66 provides in certain circumstances for the compulsory settlement of disputes by the International Court of Justice (in the case of disputes concerning the application or interpretation of Articles 53 or 64) or by a conciliation procedure (in the case of the rest of Part V of the Convention). These provisions are inextricably linked with the provisions of Part V to which they relate. Their inclusion was the basis on which those parts of Part V which represent progressive development of international law were accepted by the Vienna Conference. Accordingly the United Kingdom does not consider that the treaty relations between it and the Soviet Union include Part V of the Convention.

With respect to any other reservation the intention of which is to exclude the application, in whole or in part, of the provisions of Article 66, to which the United Kingdom has already objected or which is made after the reservation by the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom will not consider its treaty relations with the State which has formulated or will formulate such a reservation as including those provisions of Part V of the Convention with regard to which the application of Article 66 is rejected by the reservation.

The instrument of accession deposited by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics included also a declaration that it reserves the right to take ‘any measures’ to safeguard its interests in the event of the non-observance by other States of the provisions of the Convention. The purpose and scope of this statement is unclear; but, given that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has rejected the application of Article 66 of the Convention, it would seem to apply rather to acts by Parties to the Convention in respect of treaties where such acts are in breach of the Convention. In such circumstances a State would not be limited in its response to the measures in Article 60: under customary international law it would be entitled to take other measures, provided always that they are reasonable and in proportion to the breach. ’

… [the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherland] with reference to the accession of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, concluded on 23 May 1969, recalls attention to its objections formulated upon its accession to the above-mentioned Convention on 9 April 1985.

In conformity with the terms of the objections the Kingdom of the Netherlands must be deemed to have objected to the reservations, excluding wholly or in part the procedures for the settlement of disputes, contained in Article 66, as formulated by the above-mentioned States as from the date of their respective accession. Accordingly, the treaty relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics do not include any of the provisions contained in Part V of the Convention.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands re-iterates that the absence of treaty relations between it and the above-mentioned States in respect of Part V of the Convention will not in any way impair the duty of those States to fulfill any obligation embodied in those provisions to which they are subject under international law independent of the Convention. ’

‛ … Canada does not consider itself in treaty relations with the Syrian Arab Republic in respect of those provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to which the compulsory conciliation procedures set out in the annex to that Convention are applicable. ’

Article 66 of the Convention shall not be applied to the United Republic of Tanzania by any state which enters a reservation on any provision of Part V or the whole of that part of the Convention. ’

The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 66 of the Convention and declares that, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, for any dispute to be submitted to the International Court of Justice or the a conciliation procedure, the consent of all the parties to the dispute is required in each separate case. ’

The Federal Republic of Germany rejects the reservations made by the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic with regard to Article 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention. In this connection it wishes to point out once more that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers Articles 53 and 64 to be inextricably linked to Article 66(a).

[The Government of the Netherlands] recalls attention to its objections formulated upon its accession to the Convention on 9 April 1985. In conformity with the terms of the objections the Kingdom of the Netherlands must be deemed to have objected to the reservations, excluding wholly or in part the procedures for the settlement of disputes, contained in Article 66 of the Convention, as formulated by Czechoslovakia as from the date of their respective accession.

Accordingly, the treaty relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Hungary and Czechoslovakia do not include any of the provisions contained in Part V of the Convention, whereas the treaty relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Bulgaria do not include the provisions of the Article 53 and 64 of the Convention.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands re-iterates that the absence of treaty relations between itself and the above-mentioned States in respect of (parts of) Part V of the Convention will not in any way impair the duty of those States to fulfill any obligation embodied in those provisions to which they are subject under international law independent of the Convention. ’

The dispute referred to in article 66(a) requires the consent of all parties thereto in order to be submitted to the International Court of Justice for a decision.

… the United Kingdom objects to the reservation entered by the Government of Tunisia in respect of Article 66(a) of the Convention and does not accept the entry into force of the Convention as between the United Kingdom and Tunisia.

The New Zealand Government objects to the reservation entered by the Government of Tunisia in respect of Article 66(a) of the Convention and does not consider New Zealand to be in treaty relations with Tunisia in respect of those provisions of the Convention to which the dispute settlement procedure provided for in Article 66(a) is applicable.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and declares that, in order for any dispute among the Contracting Parties concerning the application or the interpretation of articles 53 or 64 to be submitted to the International Court of Justice for a decision, or for any dispute concerning the application or interpretation of any other articles in Part V of the Convention to be submitted for consideration by the Conciliation Commission, the consent of all the parties to the dispute is required in each separate case, and that the conciliators constituting the Conciliation Commission may only be persons appointed by the parties to the dispute by common consent.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will consider that it is not obligated by the provisions of article 20, paragraph 3 or of article 45 (b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, since they are contrary to established international practice.

… [the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands] with reference to the accession of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, concluded on 23 May 1969, recalls attention to its objections formulated upon its accession to the above-mentioned Convention on 9 April 1985.

In conformity with the terms of the objections the Kingdom of the Netherlands must be deemed to have objected to the reservations, excluding wholly or in part the procedures for the settlement of disputes, contained in Article 66, as formulated by the above-mentioned States as from the date of their respective accession. Accordingly, the treaty relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic do not include any of the provisions contained in Part V of the Convention.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands re-iterates that the absence of treaty relations between it and the above-mentioned States in respect of Part V of the Convention will not in any way impair the duty of those States to fulfill any obligation embodied in those provisions to which they are subject under international law independent of the Convention. ’

‛ The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that it reserves the right to take any measures to safeguard its interests in the event of the non-observance by other States of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. ’

Article 66 of the Convention contains certain provisions regarding procedures for judicial settlement, arbitration and conciliation.

According to these provisions a dispute concerning the application or the interpretation of article 53 or 64, which deal with the so called jus cogens, may be submitted to the International Court of Justice. If the dispute concerns the application or the interpretation of any of the other articles in Part V of the Convention, the conciliation procedure specified in the Annex to the Convention may be set in motion.

The Swedish Government considers that these provisions regarding the settlement of disputes are an important part of the Convention and that they cannot be separated from the substantive rules with which they are connected. Consequently, the Swedish Government considers it necessary to raise objections to any reservation which is made by another State and whose aim is to exclude the application, wholly or in part, of the provisions regarding the settlement of disputes. While not objecting to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and such a State, the Swedish Government considers that their treaty relations will not include either the procedural provision in respect of which a reservation has been made or the substantive provisions to which that procedural provision relates.

For the reasons set out above, the Swedish Government objects to the reservation of the Syrian Arab Republic, according to which its accession to the Convention shall not include the Annex, and to the reservation of Tunisia, according to which the dispute referred to in article 66(a) requires the consent of all parties thereto in order to be submitted to the International Court of Justice for a decision. In view of these reservations, the Swedish Government considers, firstly, that the treaty relations between Sweden and the Syrian Arab Republic will not include those provisions of Part V of the Convention to which the conciliation procedure in the Annex applies and, secondly, that the treaty relations between Sweden and Tunisia will not include articles 53 and 64 of the Convention.

The Swedish Government has also taken note of the declaration of the Syrian Arab Republic, according to which it interprets the expression ‘the threat or use of force’ as used in article 52 of the Convention so as to extend also to the employment of economic, political, military and psychological coercion and to all types of coercion constraining a State to conclude a treaty against its wishes or its interests. On this point, the Swedish Government observes that since article 52 refers to threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, it should be interpreted in the light of the practice which has developed or will develop on the basis of the Charter.

According to the understanding of the Government of the Sultanate of Oman the implementation of paragraph (2) to the Article (62) of the said Convention does not include those Treaties which are contrary to the right to self-determiniation.

Withdraw in their entirety the reservations formulated by the Republic of Guatemala on 23 May 1969 and confirmed upon 14 May 1997 to Articles 11 and 12 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by Peru at the time of its ratification of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Government of Sweden notes that articles 11, 12 and 25 of the Convention are being made subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of existing legislation in Peru.

The Government of Sweden is of the view that, in the absence of further clarification, this reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of Peru to the object and purpose of the Convention and would like to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.

It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation by the Government of Peru to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Peru and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without Peru benefiting from its reservation. ’

Austria has examined the reservation made by the Government of Peru at the time of its ratification of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, regarding the application of articles 11, 12 and 25 of the Convention.

The fact that Peru is making the application of the said articles subject to a general reservation referring to the contents of existing national legislation, in the absence of further clarification raises doubts as to the commitment of Peru to the object and purpose of the Convention. According to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. In Austria's view the reservation in question is therefore inadmissible to the extent that its application could negatively affect the compliance by Peru with its obligations under articles 11, 12 and 25 of the Convention.

For these reasons, Austria objects to the reservation made by the Government of Peru to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention in its entirety between Peru and Austria, without Peru benefiting from its reservation.

Acceding to this Convention, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam makes its reservation to article 66 of the said Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservation with regard to article 66 made by the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam at the time of its accession to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, concluded on 23 May 1969, and refers to the objections formulated by the Kingdom of the Netherlands upon its accession to the above-mentioned Convention on 9 April 1985.

In conformity with the terms of the objections the Kingdom of the Netherlands must be deemed to have objected to the reservation formulated by the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, excluding wholly the procedures for the settlement of disputes contained in article 66 of the Convention. Accordingly, the treaty relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam under the Convention do not include any of the provisions contained in Part V of the Convention.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands stresses that the absence of treaty relations between itself and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam in respect of Part V of the Convention will not in any way impair the duty of Viet Nam to fulfil any obligation embodied in those provisions, to which it is bound under international law, independent of the Convention. ’

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the reservation to article 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties made by the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam at the time of its accession to the Convention. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that the dispute settlement procedure provided for by article 66 is inextricably linked with the provisions of Part V of the Convention and was indeed the basis on which the Vienna Conference accepted elements of Part V. The dispute settlement set forth in article 66 therefore is an essential part of the Convention.

The Government of the Republic of Germany is thus of the view that the reservation excluding that procedures for judicial settlement, arbitration and conciliation to be followed in case of a dispute, raises doubts as to the full commitment of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to the object and purpose of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The Government of the Republic of Germany, therefore, objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

The instrument of accession deposited by the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam contains a reservation in respect of article 66 of the Convention. The United Kingdom objects to the reservation entered by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in respect of article 66 and does not accept the entry into force of the Convention as between the United Kingdom and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

… with a reservation regarding Article 66 so that the recourse to judgement or to arbitration should be preceded by agreement between the two countries concerned.

Article 66 of the Vienna of the Convention is inextricably linked with the provisions of Part V to which it relates. Therefore, Portugal declares that as to its relation with any State which has made or makes a reservation to the effect that this State will not be bound by some or all of the provisions of article 66, it will consider itself bound neither by those procedural norms nor by the substantive norms of Part V of the Convention to which the procedures provided for in Article 66 do not apply as a result of the said reservation. However, Portugal does not object to the entry into force of the remaining of the Convention between the Portuguese Republic and such a State and considers that the absence of treaty relations between itself and that State with regard to all or certain norms of Part V will not in any way impair the latter to fulfil any obligation embodied in those provisions to which it is subject under international law in dependently of the Convention.

In ratifying this Convention, Ecuador wishes to place on record its adherence to the principles, norms and methods of peaceful settlement of disputes provided for in the Charter of the United Nations and in other international instruments on the subject, which have been expressly included in the Ecuadorian legal system in article 4, paragraph 3, of the Political Constitution of the Republic.

The Republic of Armenia does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 66 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and declares that for any dispute among the Contracting Parties concerning the application or the interpretation of any article of part V of the Convention to be submitted to the International Court of Justice for a decision or to the Conciliation Commission for consideration the consent of all the parties to the dispute is required in each separate case.

… with a reservation to articles 25 and 66.

The Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and has the honour to refer to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and the Secretary-General's communication of 9 April 2014, numbered C.N.188.2014.TREATIES-XXIII.l, relating to that treaty.

The Permanent Mission of Canada notes that this communication was made pursuant to the Secretary General's capacity as Depositary for the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Permanent Mission of Canada notes the technical and administrative role of the Depositary, and that it is for States Parties to a treaty, not the Depositary, to make their own determination with respect to any legal issues raised by instruments circulated by a depositary.

In that context, the Permanent Mission of Canada notes that ‘Palestine’ does not meet the criteria of a state under international law and is not recognized by Canada as a state. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, the Permanent Mission of Canada wishes to note its position that in the context of the purported Palestinian accession to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, ‘Palestine’ is not able to accede to this convention, and that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties does not enter into force, or have an effect on Canada's treaty relations, with respect to the ‘State of Palestine’.

The Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as Depositary, and has the honor to refer to depositary notification C.N.283.2014.TREATIES-XXIII.1, dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Canada regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, dated 23 May 1969.

The Government of the State of Palestine regrets the position of Canada and wishes to recall United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 of 29 November 2012 according Palestine 'non-member observer State status in the United Nations'. In this regard, Palestine is a State recognized by the United Nations General Assembly on behalf of the international community.

As a State Party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which entered into force on 2 May 2014, the State of Palestine will exercise its rights and honor its obligations with respect to all States Parties. The State of Palestine trusts that its rights and obligations will be equally respected by its fellow States Parties.