Partijen en gegevens

The Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia declares, in accordance with article 9 of the afore-mentioned Convention:

The Socialist Republic of Romania declares, in accordance with the provisions of article 15, that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 14 of the Convention.

The position of the Socialist Republic of Romania is that disputes relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention may be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the agreement of all the parties in dispute in each particular case.

The Socialist Republic of Romania reserves the right, in accordance with article 9, paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Convention, to provide by law or international agreement that the provisions of the Convention will not apply to vessels exclusively employed by the public authorities, or to waterways reserved exclusively for its own shipping.

… the Polish People's Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 14 of the Convention with regard to the reference of disputes to the International Court of Justice. Likewise, it reserves the right not to apply the present Convention to inland waterways reserved exclusively for its own shipping.

Pursuant to the provisions of article 9(a);

The German Democratic Republic declares that the provisions of the Convention shall not apply to vessels exclusively employed by the public authorities.

In accordance with Article 19 of the Convention, [the Government of France] considers the French text as authentic.

[The Government of Austria] considers the German text as authentic, in accordance with Article 19 of the Convention.

In acceding to the Convention, the Government of the USSR deems it necessary at the same time to state its view that article 10 of the Convention, which limits the number of States which may become Parties to it, is illegal.

Pursuant to article 15:

The German Democratic Republic declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 14 of the Convention in so far as it concerns the referral of disputes to the International Court of Justice.

In accordance with the provisions of article 19:

The German Democratic Republic adopts the German text of the Convention.

The German Democratic Republic, in connection with its accession to the Convention Relating to the Unification of Certain rules Concerning Collisions in Inland Navigation of 15 March 1960, declares that the statement of the Federal Republic of Germany according to which this Convention is to be extended to Berlin (West) cannot have any legal consequences and, furthermore, is invalid. The statement of the FRG is incompatible with the four-power agreements and regulations of the post-war period as well as with the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971. As is known, the German Democratic Republic is competent for the waterways in Berlin (West).

The claim of the German Democratic Republic that it is competent for the waterways in the Western Sectors of Berlin is incorrect. Soon after the war it was decided, with the approval of the respective Sector Commandants, that German technical agencies situated in the Eastern Sector of Berlin would exercise limited operational functions in respect of some of the waterways in the Western Sectors of Berlin. This decision in no way conferred on those agencies any form of sovereignty or jurisdiction over any of the canals, waterways or locks located in the Western Sectors of Berlin, and it has no bearing on the validity of the extension to the Western Sectors of Berlin by the Federal Republic of Germany, in accordance with established procedures, of the Convention relating to the Unification of Certain Rules concerning Collisions in Inland Navigation.

When authorising the extension of this Convention to the Western Sectors of Berlin, the authorities of the Three Powers, acting in the exercise of their supreme authority, ensured, in accordance with established procedures, that the Convention is applied in the Western Sectors of Berlin in such a way as not to affect matters of security and status. Accordingly, the application of this Convention to the Western Sectors of Berlin continues in full force and effect.

The German Democratic Republic is not a party to the wartime and post-war Four Power agreements or decisions on Germany and Berlin, nor to the Quadripartite Agreement which was concluded in Berlin on 3 September 1971 by the Governments of the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The German Democratic Republic is not, therefore, competent to comment authoritatively on those agreements.

The Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States do not consider it necessary to respond to any further communications of a similar nature by States which are not parties to the Quadripartite Agreement (or parties to other relevant agreements concluded between the Four Powers). This should not be taken to imply any change in the position of those Governments in this matter.

By their Note of 13 June 1977 […], the Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States answered the assertions made in the communication referred to above. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, on the basis of the legal situation set out in the Note of the Three Powers, wishes to confirm that the application in Berlin (West) of the above-mentioned instrument extended by it under the established procedures continues in full force and effect.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany wishes to point out that the absence of a response to further communications of a similar nature should not be taken to imply any change of its position in this matter.

The Soviet side cannot agree with the claim contained in the above-mentioned letter regarding the status of waterways in the Western Sectors of Berlin, which creates a false picture of their defacto and de jure situation. It is well known that Berlin was never territorially separate from the former Soviet occupation zone of Germany, and the waterways of its Western Sectors were always regarded as an integral part of the water system of that zone and were under the jurisdiction of the Soviet authorities. This situation was reflected and corroborated in the relevant post-war Four-Power agreements and decisions. The corresponding rights and powers were thereafter transferred by the Soviet authorities to the authorities of the German Democratic Republic.

Therefore, the claim contained in the three-Power statement that agencies of the German Democratic Republic are competent only to ‘exercise limited operational functions in respect of some of the waterways in the Western Sectors of Berlin’, does not correspond to the real situation. The German Democratic Republic is competent to express its view as to which international agreements regulating problems of inland navigation may apply to these waterways.

The Permanent Mission of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that the Soviet side, as a party to the wartime and post-war Four-Power agreements and decisions, as well as to the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971, fully endorses and supports the declaration of the Government of the German Democratic Republic regarding the invalidity of the extension to Berlin (West) by the Federal Republic of Germany of the Convention relating to the Unification of Certain Rules concerning Collisions in Inland Navigation.

We have the honour to refer to the Note from the Legal Counsel, […] concerning the accession with reservations and declarations by the Government of the German Democratic Republic to the Convention relating to the Unification of Certain Rules concerning Collisions in Inland Navigation, done at Geneva on 15 March, 1960, and in particular to paragraph 2 of that Note which reported a communication dated 18 October 1977 made by the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States do not accept the assertions contained in the communication of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics dated 18 October 1977 concerning the status of waterways in the Western Sectors of Berlin. They reaffirm the views expressed in their communication of 13 June 1977 concerning the status of those waterways and concerning the validity of the extension to the Western Sectors of Berlin by the Federal Republic of Germany of the Convention relating to the Unification of Certain Rules Concerning Collisions in Inland Navigation. 

The Soviet communication referred to above also incorrectly asserts that Berlin was never territorially separate from the Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany. In this connection the Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States wish to recall inter alia the provision in the London Protocol of 12 September 1944 according to which, separately from the Zones of Occupation, a ‘special Berlin area’ under joint occupation was established in Germany.

I have the honour to refer to Note No. [……] from The Legal Counsel concerning the accession with reservations and declaration by the Government of the German Democratic Republic to the Convention relating to the Unification of Certain Rules concerning Collisions in Inland Navigation, done at Geneva on 15 March 1960. With respect to the communication, as reported in that Note, by the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics relating to the application of that Convention to Berlin (West), I wish to state the following:

By their Note of 20 April 1978 [……], the Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States answered the assertions made in the communication referred to above. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, on the basis of the legal situation set out in the Note of the Three Powers, wishes once more to confirm that the application in Berlin (West) of the above-mentioned instrument extended by it under the established procedures continues in full force and effect.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany wishes to point out that the absence to a response to further communications of a similar nature should not be taken to imply any change of its position in this matter.

Pursuant to , paragraph (a), of the Convention, the Republic of Belarus will not apply the provisions of the Convention to vessels exclusively employed by the public authorities;

Pursuant to article 9, paragraph (b), of the Convention, the Republic of Belarus will not apply the provisions of the Convention on waterways reserved exclusively for its own shipping;

Pursuant to article 15, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Republic of Belarus will not apply article 14 of the Convention insofar as it concerns the referral of disputes to the International Court of Justice.

Confirmation of reservations confirmed by Serbia and Montenegro upon succession: The Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia declares, in accordance with article 9 of the afore-mentioned Convention:

The Republic of Kazakhstan having considered the Convention accedes to it subject to the following reservation Republic of Kazakhstan declares pursuant to Article 9 that provisions of the present Convention shall not apply to the vessels designated for exercising functions of the State authority and hereby reserves the right to provide for nonapplicability of these provisions in its legislation to the waterways where the navigation is permitted only for the vessels of Republic Kazakhstan.

Confirmation of reservations confirmed by Serbia and Montenegro upon succession: The Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia declares, in accordance with Article 9 of the afore-mentioned Convention: