Partijen en gegevens

[...] the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, having considered the Convention aforesaid, hereby confirm and ratify the same on behalf of [...] British Indian Ocean Territory [...].

The Argentine Republic rejects the territorial application of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals signed in Bonn on 23 June 1979, which entered into force on 1 November 1983, to the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, which was notified by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Secretariat of the Convention on 23 July 1985 when it ratified this instrument, incorrectly designating these islands as the ‘Falkland Islands and Falkland dependencies’. The Argentine Republic reaffirms its sovereign rights over the islands in question, which are part of its national territory and concerning which there exists a sovereignty dispute, as recognised by Resolutions 2065, 3160, 31/49, 37/9, 38/12 and 39/6 of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation.

The Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are British Dependent Territories. The British Government has no doubts about UK Sovereignly over them. The reference in the Secretariat's document is correct.

The Argentine Republic rejects the inclusion of the vicuña (Lama vicugna) in Appendix I of this Convention, on the grounds that this is not a migratory species.

The British Government have noted that the Argentine instrument of accession contains the provision that the Republic of Argentina rejects the extension of the Convention by the United Kingdom of Great-Britain and Northern Ireland to include the Falkland Island, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

The British Government reject the assertions concerning these two British Dependent Territories made in the Argentine instrument. The Embassy note that the Convention applies to these Territories by virtue of the British Government's extension which was effected on 23 June 1979.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland presents its compliments to the Federal Foreign Office and has the honour to refer to a Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade of the Republic of Mauritius dated 10 January 2020 (1197/28). This concerns the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s extension of the 1979 Convention for Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals to the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rejects the claims contained in the Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade of the Republic of Mauritius. The United Kingdom has no doubt about its sovereignty over the territory of BIOT, which has been under continuous British sovereignty since 1814. Mauritius has never held sovereignty over the islands that now form BIOT and the United Kingdom does not recognise its claim.

[…] the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland made a reservation with respect to the inclusion of the Oceanic Whitetip Shark (Carcharhinus Longimanus) in Appendix I to the Convention for the territories of Bermuda, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland further communicated its intention to implement the entire list of species adopted at COP 13 and to withdraw the reservation as soon as the implementing legislation is in place. Pursuant to Article XI, paragraph 6 of the Convention, the inclusion of the Oceanic Whitetip Shark (Carcharhinus Longimanus) in Appendix I, adopted on 22 February 2020 on the occasion of the Conference of the Parties, shall not enter into force for the territories of Bermuda, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands.

Re: The Proposal on listing eight species of whales in the Appendix II of the Convention, adopted by consensus on the Second Conference of Parties.

The Norwegian delegation at the Conference welcomed the proposal in general, but stated that in case of a voting, Norway would abstain from voting on some of the species. This position was argued on the basis of limited information on the stock size of species apparently numerous in Norwegian waters.

Norway hereby announces her reservations regarding listing two species, Lagenorhynchus albirostris and L. acustus, in the Family Delphinidae in the Appendix II of the Convention. With regard to the other Odontocete species in the proposal, Norway concurs with the decision to include these species in Appendix II.

A five year research programme on marine mammals in Norway running from 1989, will institute a major effort on stock assessment of all species of cetaceans in Norwegian waters.

The Government of Norway hereby lodges a formal reservation, in accordance with Article XI 6 of the Convention, against the amendments adopted at the seventh Conference of the Parties (COP7) held in Bonn, Germany, on 18-24 September 2002, regarding the inclusion of the following species in Appendices I and II of the Convention:

‘Balaenoptera bonaerensis - Antarctic Minke Whale (in Appendix II)

Balaenoptera edeni - Bryde's Whale (in Appendix II)

Balaenoptera physalus - Fin Whale (in Appendices I and II)

Balaenoptera borealis - Sei Whale (in Appendices I and II)

Capera marginata - Pygmy Right Whale (in Appendix II)

Physeter macrocephalus (syn. Catodon) - Sperm Whale (in Appendices I and II)

Orcinus orea - Killer Whale (in Appendix II)

Carcharodon carcharias - Great White Shark (in Appendices I and II).’

Australia has a federal constitutional system in which legislative, executive and judicial powers are shared or distributed between its central, State and Territory authorities. The implementation of the Convention throughout Australia will be effected by the Federal, State and Territory Goverments having regard to their respective constitutional powers and arrangements concerning their exercise.

Australia made a reservation with respect to the inclusion of the following species in Appendix II to the Convention: Carcharhinus obscurus (Dusky shark) Prionace glauca (Blue shark) Rhynchobatus australiae (White-spotted wedgefish) Pursuant to Article XI, paragraph 6 of the Convention, the inclusion of the above-named species, adopted on 28 October 2017 on the occasion of the Conference of the Parties, shall not enter into force for Australia.

Australia made a reservation with respect to the inclusion of the following species in Appendix II to the Convention:

Sphyrna zygaena (Smooth Hammerhead Shark)

Galeorhinus galeus (Tope Shark).

Pursuant to Article XI, paragraph 6 of the Convention, the inclusion of the above-named species, adopted on 22 February 2020 on the occasion of the Conference of the Parties, shall not enter into force for Australia.

Lodges a reservation with regard to the inclusion of the Bolivian vicuña (Vicugna vicugna) in Appendix I of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, because its population has increased from 1,097 in 1965 to 56,383, as recorded in the census conducted in 2001. Consequently, this species should only continue to be included in Appendix II of the Convention (CMS).

The Government of Denmark hereby gives notification in accordance with Article XI, Section 5, of the Convention that it makes a reservation to the effect that the changes to Appendix I and Appendix II of the Convention concerning the whale species Balaenoptera bonaerensis - Antarctic Minke Whale (in Appendix II), Balaenoptera edeni - Bryde's Whale (in Appendix II), Balaenoptera physalus - Fin Whale (in Appendices I and II), Balaenoptera borealis - Sei Whale (in Appendices I and II), Capera marginata - Pygmy Right Whale (in Appendix II) and Physeter macrocephalus (syn. Catodon) - Sperm Whale (in Appendices I and II) do not apply to the Faroe Islands and their surrounding waters. The changes will equally not apply to Greenland and its surrounding waters by virtue of the territorial reservation made at the time of the deposit by the Government of Denmark of its instrument of ratification of the Convention in 1982.

In depositing its instrument of ratification of this Convention, the Government of the French Republic lodges reservations concerning Appendix I: Interpretation and concerning the species Chelonia mydas (green turtle).

The Republic of Cuba has declared reservations to the Convention concerning

The European Economic Community declares that its accession to the Convention does not apply to Greenland.

In accordance with Article XI of the CMS-Bonn Convention, an amendment to the Appendices shall enter into force for all Parties ninety days after the meeting of the Conference of the Parties at which it was adopted, except for those Parties, which make a reservation. The proposal for inclusion of Cetorhinus maximus in Appendix I of CMS-Bonn Convention, adopted at the last Conference of the Parties (COP8, November 2005) if accepted by the European Community, would require a change in EC law. Therefore, the European Community would like to hereby introduce a reservation on the inclusion of Cetorhinus maximus in Appendix I of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals.

According to Article 1 (3) of the Treaty on the European Union as amended by the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009 the European Union shall replace and succeed the European Community.

[…] the European Union informed the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, as Depositary in accordance with Article XX of the Convention, of the withdrawal of its reservation to the inclusion of the Cetorhinus maximus in Appendix I. The withdrawal of the reservation made by the European Union to the inclusion of the Cetorhinus maximus in Appendix I became effective as of 31 May 2020 in accordance with Article XI (6), sentence 2, of the Convention.

The Republic of Uganda made a reservation with respect to the inclusion of the following species in the Appendices to the Convention: Chimpanzees Lions Leopards Giraffes Pursuant to Article XI, paragraph 6 of the Convention, the inclusion of the above-named species, adopted on 28 October 2017 on the occasion of the Conference of the Parties, shall not enter into force for the Republic of Uganda.

The Republic of South Africa made a reservation with respect to the inclusion of the following species in Appendix II to the Convention:

Giraffa camelopardalis (Giraffe)

Panthera leo (Lion)

Panthera pardus (Leopard)

Prionace glauca (Blue Shark)

Pursuant to Article XI, paragraph 6 of the Convention, the inclusion of the above-named species, adopted on 28 October 2017 on the occasion of the Conference of the Parties, shall not enter into force for the Republic of South Africa.

[...] The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade of the Republic of Mauritius [...] has the honour to register its strong objection against the extension by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory".

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius considers that by extending these Agreements to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory", the United Kingdom purported to exercise sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago - a claim which is untenable under international law.

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius wishes to reiterate in emphatic terms that it does not recognize the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory". The fact that the Chagos Archipelago is, and has always been, part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, and that the United Kingdom has never had sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, has been authoritatively established by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019, on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965.

In this authoritative legal determination, the Court declared that the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius had not been lawfully completed in 1968, since the Chagos Archipelago had been unlawfully detached in 1965, in violation of the right of self-determination of peoples and the Charter of the United Nations, as applied and interpreted in accordance with UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, resolution 2066 (XX) of 16 December 1965, resolution 2232 (XXI) of 20 December 1966 and resolution 2357 (XXII) of 19 December 1967. Accordingly, it went on to hold that the United Kingdom's ongoing administration of the Chagos Archipelago, as the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory'", was an internationally wrongful act, of a continuing nature, that engaged the State responsibility of the United Kingdom. It determined that the United Kingdom is under a legal obligation to terminate its unlawful colonial administration "as rapidly as possible".

The Court further determined that all UN Member States have an obligation to cooperate with the United Nations in facilitating the completion of the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius as rapidly as possible, including an obligation not to support the continuing wrongful conduct of the United Kingdom in maintaining its colonial administration in the Chagos Archipelago.

On 22 May 2019, the General Assembly, by an overwhelming majority of 116 votes to 6, adopted resolution 73/295. By this resolution, it endorsed the Court’s Advisory Opinion, affirmed that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, and demanded that the United Kingdom terminate its unlawful colonial administration within a maximum of six months, that is by no later than 22 November 2019. That deadline has now expired.

Moreover, the General Assembly in its resolution called upon Member States to “cooperate with the United Nations to ensure the completion of the decolonization of Mauritius as rapidly as possible” and to refrain from conduct that might impede or delay the completion of decolonization. It further called upon the United Nations and all its specialized agencies to recognize that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, to support the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius as rapidly as possible, and to refrain from impeding that process by recognizing the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory". Lastly, the resolution also called upon “all other international, regional and intergovernmental organizations, including those established by treaty,” to recognize that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, to support its speedy decolonization, and to "refrain from impeding that process" by recognizing the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory".

The Republic of Mauritius has, over the years, consistently asserted, and hereby reasserts, its full sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. The Government of the Republic of Mauritius therefore unequivocally protests against the extension by the United Kingdom of the Agreements listed at Annex to the so-called “British Indian Ocean Territory” and against the purported exercise by the United Kingdom of any sovereignty, rights or jurisdiction within the territory of the Republic of Mauritius.

For the above stated reasons, which arise from established principles of international law as authoritatively interpreted and applied by the International Court of Justice and endorsed by the UN General Assembly, the Government of the Republic of Mauritius does not recognize the extension by the United Kingdom of the Agreements listed at Annex to the so-called “British lndian Ocean Territory”, reserves all its rights in this regard, and calls upon all States Parties to the Agreements listed at Annex to reject the United Kingdom's extension of these Agreements to the so-called “British Indian Ocean Territory”.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade of the Republic of Mauritius kindly requests that the present objection be duly recorded, circulated and registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations [...].

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius maintains its strong objection to the United Kingdom’s extension of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory". The United Kingdom's response has no legal basis inasmuch as the Chagos Archipelago is and has always formed an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, as authoritatively established by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019 on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965.

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius wishes to recall that the ICJ also concluded that the Chagos Archipelago was illegally excised by the United Kingdom from the territory of Mauritius prior to its accession to independence and that the continued administration of the Chagos Archipelago by the United Kingdom constitutes a wrongful act of a continuing character. The Court accordingly ruled that the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible.

It follows that under international law, the Republic of Mauritius is the sole State lawfully entitled to exercise sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. As such, the United Kingdom, which is an illegal colonial occupier, does not and cannot have sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago.

In Resolution 73/295 of 22 May 2019, the UN General Assembly demanded that the United Kingdom withdraw its colonial administration from the Chagos Archipelago unconditionally by 22 November 2019, thereby enabling the Republic of Mauritius to complete the decolonization of its territory as rapidly as possible. The United Kingdom has failed to meet this deadline.

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius therefore rejects the United Kingdom's response and reiterates its protest against the United Kingdom's extension of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory" and against the purported exercise by the United Kingdom of any sovereignty, rights or jurisdiction within the territory of the Republic of Mauritius.

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius also renews its call upon all Contracting Parties to the Convention to reject the United Kingdom's extension of the Convention to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory".