Partijen en gegevens

The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic declares that the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and paragraph 1 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which a number of States cannot become parties to these Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature and considers that the Covenants, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, should be open for participation by all States concerned without any discrimination or limitation.

The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic declares that the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and paragraph 1 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which a number of States cannot become parties to these Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature and considers that the Covenants, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, should be open for participation by all States concerned without any discrimination or limitation.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and paragraph 1 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which a number of States cannot become parties to these Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature and considers that the Covenants, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, should be open for participation by all States concerned without any discrimination or limitation.

The Mongolian People's Republic declares that the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of paragraph 1 of article 48 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which a number of States cannot become parties to these Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature and considers that the Covenants, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, should be open for participation by all States concerned without any discrimination or limitation.

‛ The Government of Israel has noted the political character of the declaration made by the Government of Syria on acceding to the above Covenants. In the view of the Government of Israel, the two Covenants are not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Syria an attitude of complete reciprocity. ’

The People's Republic of Bulgaria deems it necessary to underline that the provisions of article 48, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and article 26, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, under which a number of States are deprived of the opportunity to become parties to the Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature. These provisions are inconsistent with the very nature of the Covenants, which are universal in character and should be open for accession by all States. In accordance with the principle of sovereign equality, no State has the right to bar other States from becoming parties to a Covenant of this kind.

‛ Ratification by Iraq of the above-mentioned Covenants shall in no way signify recognition of Israel nor shall it be conducive to entry with her into such dealings as are regulated by the said Covenants. ’

‛ The Government of Israel has noted the political character of the reservation made by the Government of Iraq on that occasion. In the view of the Government of Israel, these Covenants are not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. Moreover, the declaration cannot in any way affect whatever obligations are binding upon Iraq under general international law or under particular treaties. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Iraq an attitude of complete reciprocity. ’

The Government of Madagascar states that it reserves the right to postpone the application of article 13, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, more particularly in so far as relates to primary education, since, while the Malagasy Government fully accepts the principles embodied in the said paragraph and undertakes to take the necessary steps to apply them in their entirety at the earliest possible date, the problems of implementation, and particularly the financial implications, are such that full application of the principles in question cannot be guaranteed at this stage.

… Sweden enters a reservation in connexion with article 7(d) of the Covenant in the matter of the right to remuneration for public holidays.

The Government of Denmark cannot, for the time being, undertake to comply entirely with the provisions of Article 7(a)(i) on equal pay for equal work and Article 7(d) on remuneration for public holidays.

‛ … to the effect that the current Norwegian practice of referring labour conflicts to the State Wages Board (a permanent tripartite arbitral commission in matters of wages) by Act of Parliament for the particular conflict, shall not be considered incompatible with the right to strike, this right being fully recognised in Norway. ’

The German Democratic Republic considers that article 26, paragraph 1, of the Covenant runs counter to the principle that all States which are guided in their policies by the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter have the right to become parties to conventions which affect the interests of all States.

By reason of their material content, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 19 December 1966 directly affect matters of security and status. With this in mind, the Soviet Union considers the statement made by the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the extension of the operation of these Covenants to Berlin (West) to be illegal and to have no force in law, since, under the quadripartite agreement of 3 September 1971, the treaty obligations of the Federal Republic of Germany affecting matters of security and status may not be extended to the Western Sectors of Berlin.

The Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States wish to point out that the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the primary purpose of both of which is the protection of the rights of the individual, are not treaties which ‘by reason of their material content, directly affect matters of security and status’.

As for the references to the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971 which are contained in the communication made by the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics referred to in the Legal Counsel's Note, the Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States wish to point out that, in a communication to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which is an integral part (Annex IV A) of the Quadripartite Agreement, they reaffirmed that, provided that matters of security and status are not affected, international agreements and arrangements entered into by the Federal Republic of Germany may be extended to the Western Sectors of Berlin. For its part the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in a communication to the Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States which is similarly an integral part (Annex IV B) of the Quadripartite Agreement, affirmed that it would raise no objection to such extension.

In authorising the extension of the Covenants to the Western Sectors of Berlin, as mentioned above, the authorities of France, the United Kingdom and the United States took all necessary measures to ensure that the Covenants cannot be applied in the Western Sectors of Berlin in such a way as to affect matters of security and status. Accordingly, the application of the Covenants to the Western Sectors of Berlin continues in full force and effect.

‛ By their note of 4 November 1974, circulated to all States Parties to either of the Covenants by C.N.306.1974.TREATIES-7 of 19 November 1974, the Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States answered the assertions made in the communication of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics referred to above. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany shares the position set out in the note of the Three Powers. The extension of the Covenants to Berlin (West) continues in full force and effect. ’

The Presidential Council of the Hungarian People's Republic declares that the provisions of article 48, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and article 26, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are inconsistent with the universal character of the Covenants. It follows from the principle of sovereign equality of States that the Covenants should be open for participation by all States without any discrimination or limitation.

‛ The acceptance and the accession to this Covenant by the Libyan Arab Republic shall in no way signify a recognition of Israel or be conducive to entry by the Libyan Arab Republic into such dealings with Israel as are regulated by the Covenants. ’

‛ The Government of Israel has noted the political character of the declaration made by the Government of the Libyan Arab Republic on that occasion. In the view of the Government of Israel, the Covenants are not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. Moreover, that declaration cannot in any way affect the obligations of the Libyan Arab Republic already existing under general international law. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of the Libyan Arab Republic an attitude of complete reciprocity. ’

While the Kenya Government recognizes and endorses the principles laid down in paragraph 2 of article 10 of the Covenant, the present circumstances obtaining in Kenya do not render necessary or expedient the imposition of those principles by legislation.

The Government of Barbados states that it reserves the right to postpone -

since, while the Barbados Government fully accepts the principles embodied in the same articles and undertakes to take the necessary steps to apply them in their entirety, the problems of implementation are such that full application of the principles in question cannot be guaranteed at this stage.

‛ The Rwandese Republic being bound, however, in respect of education, only by the provisions of its Constitution. ’

‛ The provision of [the article concerned] is in contradiction with the principle that all States have the right to become parties to multilateral treaties regulating matters of general interest. ’

…, the Government of the United Kingdom declare their understanding that, by virtue of Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations, in the event of any conflict between their obligations under Article 1 of the Covenant and their obligations under the Charter (in particular, under Articles 1, 2 and 73 thereof) their obligations under the Charter shall prevail. ’

Firstly the Government of the United Kingdom maintain their declaration in respect of Article 1 made at the time of signature of the Covenant.

The Government of the United Kingdom declare that for the purposes of Article 2.3 the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Gilbert Islands, the Pitcairn Islands Group, St. Helena and Dependencies, the Turks and Caicos Islands and Tuvalu are developing countries.

The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to interpret Article 6 as not precluding the imposition of restrictions, based on place of birth or residence qualifications, on the taking of employment in any particular region or territory for the purpose of safeguarding the employment opportunities of workers in that region or territory.

The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to postpone the application of sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of Article 7, in so far as it concerns the provision of equal pay to men and women for equal work in the private sector in Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Bermuda, Hong Kong and the Solomon Islands.

The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right not to apply sub-paragraph 1(b) of Article 8 in Hong Kong.

The Government of the United Kingdom while recognising the right of everyone to social security in accordance with Article 9 reserve the right to postpone implementation of the right in the Cayman Islands and the Falkland Islands because of shortage of resources in these territories.

The Government of the United Kingdom reserve the right to postpone the application of paragraph 1 of Article 10 in regard to a small number of customary marriages in the Solomon Islands and the application of paragraph 2 of Article 10 in so far as it concerns paid maternity leave in Bermuda and the Falkland Islands.

The Government of the United Kingdom maintain the right to postpone the application of sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 2 of Article 13, and Article 14, in so far as they require compul sory primary education, in the Gilbert Islands, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.

Lastly the Government of the United Kingdom declare that the provisions of the Covenant shall not apply to Southern Rhodesia unless and until they inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations that they are in a position to ensure that the obligations imposed by the Covenant in respect of that territory can be fully implemented.

In accordance with the principle whereby all States whose policies are guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations are entitled to become parties to Covenant affecting the interests of the international community, the Government of the Republic of Guinea considers that the provisions of article 26, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are contrary to the principle of the universality of international treaties and the democratization of international relations.

The Government of the Republic of Guinea likewise considers that article 1, paragraph 3, and the provisions of article 14 of that instrument are contrary to the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, in general, and United Nations resolutions on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, in particular.

The above provisions are contrary to the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States contained in General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), pursuant to which every State has the duty to promote realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples in order to put an end to colonialism.

… Clarify

That although it is not certain whether the reservation stated below is necessary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has preferred the form of a reservation to that of a declaration. In this way the Kingdom of the Netherlands wishes to ensure that the relevant obligation under the Covenant does not apply to the Kingdom as far as the Netherlands Antilles is concerned.

‘Article 8, paragraph 1(d)

The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept this provision in the case of the Netherlands Antilles with regard to the latter's central and local government bodies.

Article 8, paragraph 1(d)

It is at present considered expedient not to grant all persons in central and local government service in the Netherlands Antilles the right to strike.’

In reference to the reservation made by the Kingdom of the Netherlands on ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 11 December 1978, which reads, as far as relevant:

‘…

Article 12, paragraph 1

The Kingdom of the Netherlands regards the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles as separate territories of a State for the purpose of this provision.

Article 12, paragraphs 2 and 4

The Kingdom of the Netherlands regards the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles as separate countries for the purpose of these provisions.

…’

The Kingdom of the Netherlands, consisting, as per 10 October 2010, of the European part of the Netherlands, the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba), Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Marteen, regards these parts as separate territories for the purpose of Article 12, paragraph 1, and as separate countries for the purpose of Article 12, paragraphs 2 and 4, of the Covenant.

[…] the Kingdom of the Netherlands, for Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba), withdraws the reservation made with respect to Article 8, paragraph 1, under d, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights […]

Interpretive statement

The Government of Mexico accedes to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights with the understanding that article 8 of the Covenant shall be applied in the Mexican Republic under the conditions and in conformity with the procedures established in the applicable provisions of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States and the relevant implementing legislation.

Withdrawal of reservation to sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 of article 13 of the Covenant.

The Federal Government welcomes the decision of the Republic of India to adhere to the United Nations Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany strongly objects, however, to the declaration made by the Republic of India in respect of article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights …

The right of self-determination as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and as embodied in the Covenant applies to all peoples and not only to those under foreign domination. All peoples, therefore, have the inalienable right freely to determine their political status and freely to pursue their economic, social and cultural development. The Federal Government cannot consider as valid any interpretation of the right of self-determination which is contrary to the clear language of t he provisions in question. It moreover considers that any limitation of their applicability to all nations is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. ’

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of India in relation to article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, since the right of self determination as embodied in the Covenant is conferred upon all peoples. This follows not only from the very language of article 1 common to the two Covenants but as well from the most authoritative statement of the law concerned, i.e. the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Any attempt to limit the scope of this right or to attach conditions not provided for in the relevant instruments would undermine the concept of selfdetermination itself and would thereby seriously weaken its universally acceptable character. ’

The Government of the Islamic Republic of objects to the declaration made by the Republic of India in respect of article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The right of Self-determination as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and as embodied in the Covenants applies to all peoples under foreign occupation and alien domination. The Government of the Islamic Republic of cannot consider as valid any interpretation of the right of self-determination which is contrary to the clear language of the provisions in question. Moreover, the said reservation is imcompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenants. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Islamic Republic of and India without India benefitting form its reservations.

The Government of New Zealand reserves the right not to apply Article 8 to the extent that existing legislative measures, enacted to ensure effective trade union representation and encourage orderly industrial relations, may not be fully compatible with that Article.

The Government of New Zealand reserves the right to postpone, in the economic circumstances foreseeable at the present time, the implementation of Article 10 (2) as it relates to paid maternity leave with adequate social security benefits. ’

Declares that, consistent with the constitutional status of Tokelau and taking into account the commitment of the Government of New Zealand to the development of self-government for Tokelau through an act of self-determination under the Charter of the United Nations, the withdrawal of this reservation shall not extend to Tokelau unless and until a Declaration to this effect is lodged by the Government of New Zealand with the Depositary on the basis of appropriate consultation with that territory.

‛ The Government of Trinidad and Tobago reserves the right to impose lawful and or reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the aforementioned rights by personnel engaged in essential services under the Industrial Relations Act or under any Statute replacing same which has been passed in accordance with the provisions of the Trinidad and Tobago Constitution. ’

The Government of the Republic of Zambia states that it reserves the right to postpone the application of article 13 (2)(a) of the Covenant, in so far as it relates to primary education; since, while the Government of the Republic of Zambia fully accepts the principles embodied in the same article and undertakes to take the necessary steps to apply them in their entirety, the problems of implementation, and particularly the financial implications, are such that full application of the principles in question cannot be guarenteed at this stage. ’

[The Government of Argentina makes a] formal objection to the [declaration] of territorial extension issued by the United Kingdom with regard to the Malvinas Islands (and dependencies), which that country is illegally occupying and refers to as the ‘Falkland Islands.

The Argentine Republic rejects and considers null and void the [said declaration] of territorial extension.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have no doubt as to their right, by notification to the Depositary under the relevant provisions of each of the above treaties, to extend the application of the Covenants in question to the Falkland Islands or to the Falkland Islands Dependencies, as the case may be.

For this reason alone, the Government of the United Kingdom are unable to regard the Argentine communications under reference as having any legal effect. ’

The Argentine Republic rejects the extension, notified to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 20 May 1976 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the application of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 16 December 1966, to the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, and reaffirms its sovereign rights to those archipelagos, which form an integral part of its national territory.

The General Assembly of the United Nations has adopted resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6 and 40/21 in which it recognizes the existence of a sovereignty dispute regarding the question of the Falklands Islands (Malvinas) and urges the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pursue negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute, through the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall inform the General Assembly of the progress made.

The Permanent Representative wishes to inform the Secretary-General that the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rejects the statements made by the Argentine Republic, regarding the Falkland Island and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Island, when ratifying the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and when acceding to the Optional Protocol to the latter.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has no doubt as to British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and its consequent right to extend treaties to those territories. ’

The Federal Republic of Germany states the following regarding the declarations made by Algeria upon deposit of its instrument of ratification to the International Covenant of 16 December 1966 on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights …

It interprets the declaration under paragraph 2 to mean that the latter is not intended to eliminate the obligation of Algeria to ensure that the rights guaranteed in article 8, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights … may be restricted only for the reasons mentioned in the said articles and that such restriction shall be prescribed by law.

It interprets the declaration under paragraph 4 to mean that Algeria, by referring to its domestic legal system, does not intend to restrict its obligation to ensure through appropriate steps equally of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

The Government of Portugal hereby presents its formal objection to the interpretative declarations made by the Government of Algeria upon ratification of the … International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Government of Portugal having examined the contents of the said declarations reached the conclusion that they can be regarded as reservations and therefore should be considered invalid as well as incompatible with the purposes and object of the Covenants.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenants between Portugal and Algeria. ’

In the opinion of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the interpretative declaration concerning article 13, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 16 December 1966) must be regarded as a reservation to the Covenant. From the text and history of the Covenant it follows that the reservation with respect to article 13, paragraphs 3 and 4 made by the Government of Algeria is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore considers the reservation unacceptable and formally raises an objection to it.

[This objection is] not an obstacle to the entry into force of [the Covenant] between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Algeria. ’

Article 2, Paragraph 2

In the context of Government policy to foster, promote and encourage the use of the Irish language by all appropriate means, Ireland reserves the right to require, or give favourable consideration to, a knowledge of the Irish language for certain occupations.

Article 13, Paragraph 2(a)

Ireland recognises the inablienable right and duty of parents to provide for the education of children, and, while recognising the State's obligations to provide for free primary education and requiring that children receive a certain minimum education, nevertheless reserves the right to allow parents to provide for the education of their children in their homes provided that these minimum standards are observed. ’

‛ The Government of Malta declares that it is in favour of upholding the principle affirmed in the words ‘and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions’. However, having regard to the fact that the population of Malta is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, it is difficult also in view of limited financial and human resources, to provide such education in accordance with a particular religious or moral belief in cases of small groups, which cases are very exceptional in Malta. ’

‛ … taking into consideration the provisions of the Islamic Sharia and the fact that they do not conflict with the text annexed to the instrument … we accept, support and ratify it … ’

Upon accession to the Convenants, the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam deems it necessary to declare that the provisions of …, article 26, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, under which a number of States are deprived of the opportunity to become parties to the Covenants, are of a discriminatory nature. The Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam considers that the Covenants, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, should be open for participation by all States without any discrimination or limitation.

The presiding body of the Revolutionary Council of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan declares that the … provisions of paragraphs 1 and 3 of article 26 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, according to which some countries cannot join the aforesaid Covenants, contradicts the international character of the aforesaid treaties. Therefore, according to the equal rights to all States to sovereignty, both Covenants should be left open for the purpose of the participation of all States.

‛ The accession of the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or serve as grounds for the establishment of relations of any sort with Israel. ’

The German Democratic Republic has ratified the two Covenants in accordance with the policy it has so far pursued with the view to safeguarding human rights. It is convinced that these Covenants promote the world-wide struggle for the enforcement of human rights, which is an integral part of the struggle for the maintenance and strengthening of peace. On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it thus contributes to the peaceful international cooperation of states, to the promotion of human rights and to the joint struggle against their violation by aggressive policies, colonialism and apartheid, racism and other forms of assaults on the right of the peoples to selfdetermination.

The Constitution of the German Democratic Republic guarantees the political, economic, social and cultural rights to every citizen independent of race, sex and religion. Socialist democracy has created the conditions for every citizen not only to enjoy these rights but also take an active part in their implementation and enforcement.

Such fundamental human rights as the right to peace, the right to work and social security, the equality of women, and the right to education have been fully implemented in the German Democratic Republic. The Government of the German Democratic Republic has always paid great attention to the material prerequisites for guaranteeing above all the social and economic rights. The welfare of the working people and its continuous improvement are the leit-motif of the entire policy of the Government of the German Democratic Republic.

The Government of the German Democratic Republic holds that the signing and ratification of the two human rights Covenants by further Member States of the United Nations would be an important step to implement the aims for respecting and promoting the human rights, the aims proclaimed in the United Nations Charter. ’

the Covenants are confirmed and proclaimed binding and valid, and they shall have effect and be implemented and observed without exception, bearing in mind that:

Article 1

The InternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ratified, respectively, by Act No. 29/78 of 12 June, and by Act No. 45/78 of 11 July, shall be applicable in the territory of Macau.

Article 2

…

Article 5

In accordance with the Decision made by the Standing Committee of the Ninth National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China at its Twentieth Session, the President of the People's Republic of China hereby ratifies The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which was signed by Mr. Qin Huasun on behalf of the People's Republic of China on 27 October 1997, and declares the following:

The Government of Norway has examined the statement made by the People's Republic of China upon ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

It is the Government of Norway's position that the statement made by China in substance constitutes a reservation, and consequently can be made subject to objections.

According to the first paragraph of the statement, the application of Article 8.1(a) of the Covenant shall be consistent with relevant provisions of national legislation. This reference to national legislation, without further description of its contents, exempts the other States Parties from the possibility of assessing the intended effects of the statement. Further, the contents of the relevant provision is not only in itself of fundamental importance, as failure to implement it can also contribute to a less effective implementation of other provisions of the Covenant, such as Articles 6 and 7.

For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the said part of the statement made by the People's Republic of China, as it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Norway and the People's Republic of China. The Covenant thus becomes operative between Norway and China without China benefiting from the reservation.

…the statement made by the Government of the People's Republic of China to article 8.1(a) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the statement and would like to recall that, under well established international treaty law, the name assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified, does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the statement made by the Government of the People's Republic of China to article 8.1(a) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in substance constitutes a reservation.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that the application of Article 8.1(a) of the Covenant is being made subject to a statement referring to the contents of national legislation. According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to abide by the treaty. Furthermore, the right to form and join a trade union of one's choice is one of the fundamental principles of the Covenant.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation made by the People's Republic of China to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and China.

The Government of Sweden has examined the statement and would like to recall that, under well-established international treaty law, the name assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified, does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. The Government of Sweden considers that the statement made by the Government of the People's Republic of China to article 8.1(a) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in substance constitutes a reservation.

The Government of Sweden notes that the application of Article 8.1(a) of the Covenant is being made subject to a statement referring to the contents of national legislation. According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to abide by the treaty. Furthermore, the right to form and join a trade union of one's choice is one of the fundamental principles of the Covenant. The Government of Sweden wishes 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.

The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservation made by the People's Republic of China to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between China and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force without China benefiting from the reservation.

The signature that the Taiwan authorities affixed, by usurping the name of ‘China’, to the [said Covenant] on 5 October 1967, is illegal and null and void.

The Republic of Turkey declares that; it will implement its obligations under the Covenant in accordance to the obligations under the Charter of the United Nations (especially Article 1 and 2 thereof).

The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement the provisions of this Covenant only to the States with which it has diplomatic relations.

The Republic of Turkey declares that this Convention is ratified exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Repubic[lees: Republic] of Turkey are applied.

The Republic of Turkey reserves the right to interpret and apply the provisions of the paragraph (3) and (4) of the Article 13 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in accordance to the provisions under the Article 3, 14 and 42 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey.

…the Government of the Republic of Cyprus wishes to express its objection with respect to the declarations entered by the Republic of Turkey upon ratification on 23 September 2003, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, New York, 16 December 1966.

The Government of the Republic of Cyprus considers that the declaration relating to the implementation of the provisions of the Covenant only to the States with which the Republic of Turkey has diplomatic relations, and the declaration that the Convention is ‘ratified exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied’ amount to reservations. These reservations create uncertainty as to the States Parties in respect of which Turkey is undertaking the obligations in the Covenant, and raise doubt as to the commitment of Turkey to the object and purpose of the said Covenant.

The Government of the Republic of Cyprus objects to the said reservations entered by the Republic of Turkey and states that these reservations or the objection to them shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Turkey.

The Government of Sweden has examined the declarations and reservation made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratifying the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement the provisions of the Covenant only to the State Parties with which it has diplomatic relations. This statement in fact amounts, in the view of the Government of Sweden, to a reservation. The reservation of the Republic of Turkey makes it unclear to what extent the Republic of Turkey considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant. In absence of further clarification, therefore, the reservation raises doubt as to the commitment of the Republic of Turkey to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Sweden notes that the interpretation and application of paragraphs 3 and 4 of article 13 of the Covenant is being made subject to a reservation referring to certain provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey without specifying their contents. The Government of Sweden is of the view that in the absence of further clarification, this reservation, which does not clearly specify the extent of the Republic of Turkey's derogation from the provisions in question, raises serious doubts as to the commitment of the Republic of Turkey to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

According to established customary law as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of all 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 reservations made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Turkey and Sweden. The Covenant enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without the Republic of Turkey benefiting from its reservations.

The Government of Greece has examined the declarations made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratifying the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement the provisions of the Covenant only to the States with which it has diplomatic relations.

In the view of the Government of Greece, this declaration in fact amounts to a reservation. This reservation is incompatible with the principle that inter-State reciprocity has no place in the context of human rights treaties, which concern the endowment of individuals with rights. It is therefore contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Republic of Turkey furthermore declares that the Covenant is ratified exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied.

In the view of the Government of Greece, this declaration in fact amounts to a reservation. This reservation is incompatible with the obligation of a State Party to respect and ensure the rights laid down in the Covenant to anyone within the power or effective control of that State Party, even if not situated within the territory of such State Party. Accordingly, this reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

For these reasons, the Government of Greece objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Hellenic Republic and the Republic of Turkey. The Covenant, therefore, enters into force between the two States without the Republic of Turkey benefiting from these reservations.

The Government of the Republic of Turkey has declared that it will implement the provisions of the Covenant only to the states with which it has diplomatic relations. Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Turkey has declared that it ratifies the Covenant exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied. Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Turkey has reserved the right to interpret and apply the provisions of Article 13 paragraphs (3) and (4) of the Covenant in accordance with the provisions of Articles 3, 14 and 42 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany would like to recall that it is in the common interest of all states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected and applied 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 these treaties. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is therefore concerned about declarations and reservations such as those made and expressed by the Republic of Turkey with respect to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

However, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany believes these declarations do not aim to limit the Covenant’s scope in relation to those states with which Turkey has established bonds under the Covenant, and that they do not aim to impose any other restrictions that re not provided for by the Covenant. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany attaches great importance to the liberties recognized in Article 13 paragraphs (3) and (4) of the Covenant. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany understands the reservation expressed by the Government of the Republic of Turkey to mean that this Article will be interpreted and applied in such a way that protects the essence of the freedoms guaranteed therein. ’

The Government of Finland has examined the declarations and reservation made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Government of Finland notes that the Republic of Turkey reserves the right to interpret and apply the provisions of the paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 13 of the Covenant in accordance with the provisions under articles 3, 14 and 42 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey.

The Government of Finland emphasises the great importance of the rights provided for in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The reference to certain provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey is of a general nature and does not clearly specify the content of the reservation. The Government of Finland therefore wishes to declare that it assumes that the Government of the Republic of Turkey will ensure the implementation of the rights recognised in the Covenant and will do its utmost to bring its national legislation into compliance with the obligations under the Covenant with a view to withdrawing the reservation. This declaration does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Turkey and Finland.

The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) by invoking certain provisions of national law in general terms may create doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international law.

It is in the common interest of all 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 Portugal therefore objects to the reservation by Turkey to the ICESCR. This objection shall not contribute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Covenant between Portugal and Turkey.

While the Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan accepts the provisions embodied in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, it will implement the said provisions in a progressive manner, in keeping with the existing economic conditions and the development plans of the country. The provisions of the Covenant shall, however, be subject to the provisions of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The Government of Sweden would like to recall that the designation assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty.

The Government of Sweden is of the view that although Article 2 (1) of the Covenant allows for a progressive realization of the provisions, this may not be invoked as a basis for discrimination.

The application of the provisions of the Covenant has been made subject to provisions of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of . This makes it unclear to what extent the Islamic Republic of considers itself bound by the obligations of the treaty and therefore raises doubts as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Sweden considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in substance constitutes a reservation. It is of common interest of States that all Parties respect treaties to which they have chosen to become parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. 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.

The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between and Sweden, without benefiting from its reservation.

The Government of Denmark has examined the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of upon [signing] the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The application of the provisions of the said Covenant has been made subject to the provisions of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of . This general formulation makes it unclear to what extent the Islamic Republic of considers itself bound by the obligations of the Covenant and therefore raises doubt as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Denmark considers that the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of to the international Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in substance constitutes a reservation and that this reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

For the above-mentioned reasons, the Government of Denmark objects to this declaration made by the Islamic Republic of . This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Islamic Republic of and Denmark without benefiting from her declaration.

The Government of the United Kingdom have examined the Declaration made by the Government of on 3 November 2004 on signature of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (done at New York on 16 December 1966).

The Government of the United Kingdom consider that the Government of 's Declaration which seeks to subject its obligations under the Covenant to the provisions of its own Constitution is a reservation which seeks to limit the scope of the Covenant on a unilateral basis. The Government of the United Kingdom note that a reservation to a Convention which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore object to this reservation made by the Government of .

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and .

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of on 3 November 2004 upon signature of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rigths, done at New York on 16 december 1966.

The Governement[lees: Government ] of the Kingdom of the Netherlands would like to recall that the status of a statement is not determined by the designation assigned to it.

The application of the provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has been made subject to the provisions of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of .

This makes it unclear to what extent the Islamic Republic of considers itself bound by the obligations of the treaty. It is of the common interest of States that all parties respect treaties to which they have chosen to become parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. A reservation as formulated by the Islamic Republic of is thus likely to contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights in substance constitutes a reservation.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights. This objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kigndom[lees: Kingdom] of the Netherlands and the Islamic Republic of , without benefiting from its declaration.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of upon signature of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Government of the Islamic Republic of declared that it ‘will implement the (…) Provisions in a progressive manner, in keeping with the existing economic conditions and the development plans of the country’. Since some fundamental obligations resulting from the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including in particular the principle of non-discrimination found in Article 2 (2) thereof, are not susceptible to progressive implementation and are thus to be guaranteed immediately, the declaration represents a significant qualification of 's commitment to guarantee the human rights referred to in the Covenant. The Government of the Islamic Republic of also declared that ‘the provisions of the Covenant shall, however, be subject to the provisions of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of ’. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that this leaves it unclear to which extent the Islamic Republic of considers itself bound by the obligations resulting from the Covenant. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore regards the above-mentioned declarations as reservations and as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Islamic Republic of .

The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of to the International Covenant on [Economic, Social and Cultural] Rights upon accession.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the declaration contains general reference to national law, making the provisions of International Covenant subject to the national law of the Islamic Republic of .

Thus, the Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that the declaration is in fact a unilateral act deemed to limit the scope of application of the International Covenant and therefore, it shall be regarded as a reservation.

Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia noted that the reservation does not make it clear to what extent the Islamic Republic of considers itself bound by the provisions of the International Covenant and whether the way of implementation of the provisions of the International Covenant is in line with the object and purpose of the International Covenant.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls that customary international law as codified by Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19(c), sets out the reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not permissible.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Islamic Republic of to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenant between the Republic of Latvia and the Islamic Republic of . Thus, the International Covenant will become operative without the Islamic Republic of benefiting from its reservation.

The Government of the French Republic has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of upon signing the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966, according to which ‘The provisions of the Covenant shall be subject to the provisions of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of ’. Such a declaration is general in scope and unclear and could render the provisions of the Covenant null and void. The Government of the French Republic considers that the said declaration constitutes a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and it therefore objects to that declaration. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between France and .

The Government of Finland has carefully examined the declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of regarding the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Government of Finland takes note that the provisions of the shall, according to the Government of the Islamic Republic of , be subject to the provisions of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of .

The Government of Finland notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying the contents does not clearly define to other Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and creates serious doubts as to the commitment of the receiving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Such reservations are, furthermore, subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.

The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above-mentioned declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of to the Covenant. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Islamic Republic of and Finland. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without the Islamic Republic of benefiting from its declaration.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the Declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of on 3 November 2004 on signature of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, of 16 December 1966.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain points out that regardless of what it may be called, a unilateral declaration made by a State for the purpose of excluding or changing the legal effects of certain provisions of a treaty as it applies to that State constitutes a reservation.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that the Declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of , which seeks to subject the application of the provisions of the Covenant to the provisions of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of is a reservation which seeks to limit the legal effects of the Covenant as it applies to the Islamic Republic of . A reservation that includes a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does not make it possible to determine clearly the extent to which the Islamic Republic of has accepted the obligations of the Covenant and, consequently, creates doubts as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that the Declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of to the effect that it subjects its obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to the provisions of its constitution is a reservation and that that reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

According to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not permissible.

Consequently, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Spain and the Islamic Republic of .

The Government of the Kingdom of Norway have examined the Declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of on 3 November 2004 on signature of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (New York, 16 December 1966). According to the first part of the Declaration, the Government of the Islamic Republic of ‘will implement the (…) provisions (embodied in the Covenant) in a progressive manner, in keeping with the existing economic conditions and the development plans of the country’. Since some fundamental obligations embodied in the Covenant, including in particular the principle of non-discrimination found in Article 2 (2) thereof, are not susceptible to progressive implementation and are thus to be guaranteed immediately, the Government of the Kingdom of Norway consider that this part of the Declaration represents a significant qualification of 's commitment to guarantee the provisions embodied in the Covenant. According to the second part of the Declaration, ‘(t)he provisions of the Covenant shall, however, be subject to the provisions of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of . ’The Goverment of the Kingdom of Norway note that a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of Norway consider that both parts of the Government of the Islamic Republic of 's Declaration seek to limit the scope of the Covenant on a unilateral basis and therefore constitute reservations. The Government of the Kingdom of Norway consider both reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, and therefore object to the reservations made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of .

This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Norway and the Islamic Republic of , without the Islamic Republic of benefiting from its reservations.

The Government of Austria has examined the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of upon signature of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The application of the provisions of the Covenant has been made subject to provisions of national law. This makes it unclear to what extent the Islamic Republic of considers itself bound by the obligations of the treaty and therefore raises concerns as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Austria considers that the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of to the Covenant in substance constitutes a reservation and that this reservation is incompatible with the object and the purpose of the Covenant. The Government of Austria therefore objects to the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of to the Covenant.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Islamic Republic of and the Republic of Austria.

Withdrawal of the declaration made upon signature.

Reservation

Pakistan, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant, shall use all appropriate means to the maximum of its available resources.

The Government of the Slovak Republic has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of upon ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966, according to which, ‘, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant, shall use all ap[p]ropriate means to the maximum of its available resources.’

The Government of the Slovak Republic is of the view that the reservation is too general and unclear and raises doubts as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of to its obligations under the Covenant, essential for the fulfillment of its object and purpose.

The Government of the Slovak Republic objects for these reasons to the above mentioned reservation made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of upon ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of upon ratifying the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

It is the understanding of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that the reservation of does not exclude or modify the legal effect of the provisions of the Covenant in their application to .

The Government of the French Republic has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of upon ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which was adopted on 16 December 1966. The reservation states that , with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant, shall use all appropriate means to the maximum of its available resources. Although this declaration has been referred to as a reservation, it simply reformulates the content of article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. Furthermore, it cannot have the effect of modifying the other provisions of the Covenant without constituting a reservation of general scope that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the French Republic therefore considers the reservation by to be a mere declaration that is devoid of legal effect

With reference to Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Government of [the] Republic of Indonesia declares that, consistent with the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, and the relevant paragraph of the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action of 1993, the words ‘the right of self-determination’ appearing in this article do not apply to a section of people within a sovereign independent state and can not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states.

The Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain declares that its accession to sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph (1) of article (8) of this Covenant will not prejudice its right to prohibit strikes in vitally important utilities.

The Government of the Bahamas interprets non-discrimination as to national origin as not necessarily implying an obligation on States automatically to guarantee to foreigners the same rights as to their nationals. The term should be understood to refer to the elimination of any arbitrary behavior but not of differences in treatment based on objective and reasonable considerations, in conformity with principles prevailing in democratic societies.

Reservation:

The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic accepts Article 22 of the Covenant on the basis that Article 22 shall be interpreted in accordance with the right to selfdetermination in Article 1, and shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the Constitution and the relevant laws of the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

Declarations:

The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic declares that Article 1 of the Covenant concerning the right to self-determination shall be interpreted as being compatible with the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, adopted by the General Assembly on 24th October 1970, and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights on 25th June 1993.

The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic declares that Article 18 of the Covenant shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any activities, including economic means, by anyone which directly or indirectly, coerce or compel an individual to believe or not to believe in a religion or to convert his or her religion or belief. The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic considers that all acts creating division and discrimination among ethnic groups and among religions are incompatible with Article 18 of the Covenant.

The Government of Finland welcomes the ratification by the Lao People's Democratic Republic of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Finland has taken note of the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic to Article 22 thereof upon ratification. The Government of Finland notes that Article 22(2) provides that States Parties may, under certain specific circumstances and for certain specific purposes, restrict the right protected under Article 22(1). The Government of Finland is of the view that the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic seeks to limit the obligation of the Lao People's Democratic Republic not to restrict the freedom of association to an extent which is incompatible with Article 22(2). The reservation would therefore restrict one of the essential obligations of the Lao People's Democratic Republic under the Covenant and raises serious doubts as to the commitment of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Finland welcomes the ratification by the Lao People's Democratic Republic of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Finland has taken note of the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic to Article 22 thereof upon ratification. The Government of Finland notes that Article 22(2) provides that States Parties may, under certain specific circumstances and for certain specific purposes, restrict the right protected under Article 22(1). The Government of Finland is of the view that the reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic seeks to limit the obligation of the Lao People's Democratic Republic not to restrict the freedom of association to an extent which is incompatible with Article 22(2). The reservation would therefore restrict one of the essential obligations of the Lao People's Democratic Republic under the Covenant and raises serious doubts as to the commitment of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Ireland has examined the reservations and declarations made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and notes in particular, the intention of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to apply the provisions in Article 22 of the Covenant in its territory only insofar as those provisions are in conformity with the Constitution and relevant laws of the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

The Government of Ireland is of the view that a reservation which consists of a general reference to the Constitution or domestic laws of the reserving State and which does not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the provision of the Covenant may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant.

The Government of Ireland is furthermore of the view that such a reservation may undermine the basis of international treaty law and is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of Ireland recalls that according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant shall not be permitted.

The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic to Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic to Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights at the time of its ratification.

In the view of Austria a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. A reservation which consists of a general reference to constitutional provisions without specifying its implications does not do so. The Government of Austria therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

Communication regarding the reservation:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic upon ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The United Kingdom considers that with this reservation the application of Article 22 of the Covenant is made subject to national law in force in the Lao People's Democratic Republic. This makes it unclear to what extent the Lao People's Democratic Republic considers itself bound by the obligations under Article 22 of the Covenant.

The United Kingdom considers that a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Covenant the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. A reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its implications does not do so.

The United Kingdom therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to Article 22 of the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

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 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Secretary-General's communication of 9 April 2014, numbered C.N.180.2014.TREATIES-IV.3, 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 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 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 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ‘Palestine’ is not able to accede to this convention, and that the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 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.276.2014.TREATIES-IV.3, dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Canada regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, dated 16 December 1966.

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 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which will enter into force on 2 July 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.

The Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as depositary to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and refers to the communication by the depositary, dated 9 April 2014, regarding the Palestinian request to accede to this Convention (Reference number C.N.180.2014.TREATIES-IV.3).

‘Palestine’ does not satisfy the criteria for statehood under international law and lacks the legal capacity to join the aforesaid convention both under general international law and the terms of bilateral Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

The Government of Israel does not recognize ‘Palestine’ as a State, and wishes to place on record, for the sake of clarity, its position that it does not consider ‘Palestine’ a party to the Convention and regards the Palestinian request for accession as being without legal validity and without effect upon Israel's treaty relations under the Convention.

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.294.2014.TREATIES-IV.3, dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Israel regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, dated 16 December 1966.

The Government of the State of Palestine regrets the position of Israel, the occupying Power, 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 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which will enter into force on 2 July 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.

The Government of the Republic of South Africa will give progressive effect to the right to education, as provided for in Article 13 (2) (a) and Article 14, within the framework of its National Education Policy and available resources.

With reference to article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar declares that, in consistence with the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of 1993, the term ‘the right of self-determination’ appearing in this article does not apply to any section of people within a sovereign independent state and cannot be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of a sovereign and independent state. In addition, the term shall not be applied to undermine Section 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 2008.

The Government of Austria has carefully examined the declaration made by the Republic of the Union of Myanmar upon ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 16 December 1966. It considers this declaration to amount to a reservation of a general and indeterminate scope, as it aims at applying a provision of the Covenant only in conformity with the Constitution of Myanmar.

However, the Covenant is to be applied in accordance with international law, not in accordance with the legislation of a particular state.

For this reason, Austria considers the reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and objects to it. This objection shall however not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Austria and the Republic of the Union of Myanmar. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without Myanmar benefitting from the aforementioned reservation.

Finally, Austria wishes to point out that it does not share the narrow interpretation of the right to self-determination expressed by Myanmar, i.e. that it were excluded that this right ‘apply to any section of people within a sovereign independent state’. At the same time, Austria also underlines the fundamental difference between the right to self-determination and a claim to secession, taking into account the various ways of exercising the right of self-determination including by way of autonomy within a sovereign state.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar to Article I of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and considers that it is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Covenant on a unilateral basis.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by invoking the domestic law or/and religious beliefs and principles raise doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention, as such reservations are likely to deprive the provisions of the Convention of their effect and are contrary to the object and purpose thereof.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic recalls 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 the Covenant shall not be permitted.

Furthermore, the Government of the Portuguese Republic does not share the interpretation of ‘the right of self-determination’ expressed by the Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar which limits the content of this right and is not in line with the definition enshrined in International Law.

Thus the Government of the Portuguese Republic objects to this reservation.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of the Union of Myanmar.

The Government of Finland is pleased to learn that the Republic of Myanmar has become party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. However, the Government of Finland has carefully examined the declaration made by the Republic of the Union of Myanmar upon ratification, and is of the view that it raises certain concerns. In fact, the declaration amounts to a reservation that purports to subject the application of one of the core articles of the Covenant to the Constitution of Myanmar.

Reservation of such an indeterminate and general scope as that made by Myanmar is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and as such one that is not permitted. Therefore Finland objects to it.

This objection shall not preclude the continued validity of the Covenant between the Republic of Finland and the Republic of the Union of Myanmar. The Covenant will thus continue to operate between the two states without Myanmar benefitting from the aforementioned reservation.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that by granting its Constitution precedence over a provision of the Covenant as well as by restricting the term selfdetermination contained in Article 1 of the Covenant, Myanmar has made a reservation which makes it unclear to what extent Myanmar accepts being bound by the Covenant. If Myanmar grants its Constitution precedence then this is a reservation of general and indeterminate scope. What is important when it comes to applying the provisions of the Covenant is conformity with international law and not with the national legislation of the state which has acceded to the Covenant.

The right to self-determination anchored in the United Nations Charter and in the Covenant applies to all peoples and not only to peoples under foreign rule. All peoples therefore have the inalienable right to freely determine their political status and to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. The German Government cannot regard as legally valid an interpretation of the right to self-determination which is at variance with the clear meaning of the provision in question.

Furthermore, it considers that any restriction of its applicability to all peoples is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to this reservation, which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and thus impermissible.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Federal Republic of Germany and Myanmar.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the declaration made by the Republic of the Union of Myanmar upon ratification on 6 October 2017 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the declaration made by the Republic of the Union of Myanmar in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the right of self-determination of all peoples in Article 1 of the Covenant, by applying that provision only in conformity with the Constitution of Myanmar.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Covenant by invoking provisions of its domestic law, is likely to deprive the provisions of the Covenant of their effect and therefore must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that according to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar to the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of the Union of Myanmar.

Ireland has examined the declaration made by Myanmar to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at the time of its ratification on 6 October 2017.

Ireland is of the view that the declaration of Myanmar, purporting to subject the application of the term ‘the right of self-determination’ to the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the Covenant. Ireland considers that a reservation which consists of a general reference to the Constitution of the reserving State and which does not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the provision of the Covenant may cast doubt on the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant. Ireland is furthermore of the view that such a reservation may undermine the basis of international treaty law and is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. Ireland recalls that under international treaty law a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant shall not be permitted.

Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by Myanmar to Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Ireland and Myanmar.

The Government of Sweden has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar upon ratification to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by which, with reference to Article 1, it declared that the term ‘right to selfdetermination’ does not apply to any section of people within a sovereign independent state and cannot be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of a sovereign and independent state and also that the provision of the Covenant will only be applied in conformity with the Constitution of Myanmar.

In this context the Government of Sweden would like to recall, that under well-established international treaty law, the name assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified, does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. Thus, the Government of Sweden considers that the declaration made by the Government of Myanmar, in the absence of further clarification, in substance constitutes a reservation to the Covenant.

The declaration concerning Article 1 places conditions on the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination not provided for in international law. To attach such conditions could undermine the concept of self-determination itself and would thereby seriously weaken its universally acceptable character.

Furthermore, the Government of Sweden notes that the declaration implies that Article 1 of the Covenant is made subject to a general reservation referring to domestic law of Myanmar. Consequently, the Government of Sweden is of the view that the declaration raises doubts as to the commitment of Myanmar to the object and purpose of the Covenant and would 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.

For this reason, the Government of Sweden objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Government of Myanmar. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the treaty between Sweden and Myanmar. The treaty enters into force in its entirety between Myanmar and Sweden without Myanmar benefiting from its reservation.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the declaration made by the Republic of the Union of Myanmar upon ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

In the view of the Government of the Republic of Latvia, this declaration amounts to a reservation. Article 1 of the Covenant forms the very basis of the Covenant and its main purpose, thus no derogations from those obligations can be made.

Moreover, a reservation which subordinates any provision of the Covenant in general to the Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar constitutes a reservation of general scope which is likely to cast doubt on the full commitment of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

Reservation made by the Republic of the Union of Myanmar seeks to limit the scope of the Covenant on a unilateral basis thus the reservation is incompatible with the object and the purpose of the Covenant and therefore inadmissible under Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia objects to this reservation.

However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of the Union of Myanmar. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two States without the Republic of the Union of Myanmar benefitting from its declaration.

Reservation:

The State of Qatar does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, for they contravene the Islamic Sharia with regard to questions of inheritance and birth.

Statement:

The State of Qatar shall interpret that what is meant by ‘trade unions’ and their related issues stated in Article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Right[s], is in line with the provisions of the Labor Law and national legislation. The State of Qatar reserves the right to implement that article in accordance with such understanding.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservation and statement made by the State of Qatar with regard to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 16 December 1966.

Both the reservation to Article 3 and the statement concerning Article 8 make the application of these provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. The statement concerning Article 8 is thus of its nature also a reservation.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that by making the application of Article 3 and Article 8 of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national law, the State of Qatar has submitted reservations which raise doubts concerning the extent to which it intends to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant.

The above-mentioned reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and are accordingly not permitted under Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969. The Federal Republic of Germany thus objects to these reservations.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Federal Republic of Germany and the State of Qatar

The Government of the Republic of Poland has carefully examined the [reservation] to the Article 3 and the declaration to the Article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, done in New York on December 16, 1966, done upon its [accession] on May 21, 2018.

The Government of the Republic of Poland considers the reservation that the Qatar does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, for they contravene the Islamic Sharia with regard to questions of inheritance and birth and the statement according to which the Qatar shall interpret that what is meant by ‘trade unions’ and their related issues stated in Article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, is in line with the provisions of the Labor Law and national legislation and that the Qatar reserves the right to implement that article in accordance with such understanding is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. Therefore the Government of the Republic of Poland objects to them.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the [Covenant] between the Republic of Poland and the State of Qatar.

The Government of Estonia has carefully examined the reservations made by the State of Qatar to Article 3 and Article 23(4), as well as the statements made with regard to Article 7, Article 18(2), Article 22 and Article 23(2) of the Covenant.

The reservations to Article 3 and to Article 23(4) as well as statements 1 to 4 make the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Statements 1 to 4 are thus of their nature also reservations. The reservations and statements 1 to 4 are raising doubts concerning the extent to which the State of Qatar intends to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant.

Estonia considers aforementioned reservations and statements made by the State of Qatar incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, which are not permitted under Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969. The Government of Estonia thus objects to them.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Estonia and the State of Qatar.

The Government of Finland is pleased to learn that the State of Qatar has become party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. However, the Government of Finland has carefully examined the reservation to Article 3 and the statement concerning Article 8 made by the State of Qatar upon accession, and is of the view that they raise certain concerns. In fact, also the statement amounts to a reservation that purports to subject the application of one of the Covenant’s provisions to national legislation.

Both reservations make the application of these provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Thus, the Government of Finland is of the opinion that the State of Qatar has submitted reservations which cast doubts on the commitment of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Covenant. Such reservations are, furthermore, subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.

The above-mentioned reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and are accordingly not permitted under Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to these reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Finland and the State of Qatar. The Covenant will thus enter into force between the two states without Qatar benefitting from the aforementioned reservation.

Hungary has examined the reservation and statement made by the State of Qatar upon ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights done in New York on 16 December 1966. The reservation to Article 3 of the Covenant make[s] the application of this provision subject to the Islamic Sharia. The statement to Article 8 of the Covenant make[s] the application of this provision subject to the national legislation. Hungary considers the statement to Article 8 made by the State of Qatar by its nature also as a reservation.

Hungary is of the view that making the application of Article 3 of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia and Article 8 of the Covenant subject to the national legislation raises doubts as to the extent of Qatar’s commitment to meet its obligations under the Covenant and are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, that is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights by all individuals.

Hungary considers the aforementioned reservations inadmissible as they are not permitted under Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, thus objects to these reservations.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Hungary and the State of Qatar. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two States without the State of Qatar benefitting from its reservations.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservation and the statement made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as communicated by the Secretary-General via depositary notification C.N.260.2018.TREATIES-IV.3 of 21 May 2018, and wishes to communicate the following.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that Qatar does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, for they contravene the Islamic Sharia with regard to questions of inheritance and birth.

Further, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the statement made by the State of Qatar with respect to Article 8 of the Covenant in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the rights of trade unions in Article 8 of the Covenant, by applying that provision only in conformity with the national legislation of the State of Qatar.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Covenant by invoking provisions of the Islamic Sharia and national legislation, are likely to deprive the provisions of the Covenant of their effect and therefore must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that according to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservations of the State of Qatar to the Covenant. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the State of Qatar.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservation and the statement made by the State of Qatar upon ratification of the 1966 Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.

The Republic of Latvia considers that Article 3 of the Covenant forms the very basis of the Covenant and its main purpose, thus no derogations from those obligations can be made. In addition, the statement regarding the provisions of Article 8 of the Covenant making the application of these provisions subject to national law is in its own nature also a reservation.

The reservations made by the State of Qatar regarding Article 3 and Article 8 [exclude] the legal effect of central provision[s] of the Covenant, thus the reservations are incompatible with the object and the purpose of the Covenant and therefore inadmissible under Article 19 (c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Latvia and the State of Qatar. Thus, the Covenant will become operative between the two States without the State of Qatar benefitting from its reservations.

The Government of Austria has carefully examined the reservation and statement made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Austria considers the statement concerning Article 8 to amount to a reservation as it aims at applying a provision of the Covenant only in conformity with national legislation. However, the Covenant is to be applied in accordance with international law, not only in accordance with the legislation of a particular state.

By referring to its national legislation or to the Islamic sharia, Qatar’s reservations to Article 3 and Article 8 of the Covenant are of a general and indeterminate scope. These reservations do not clearly define for the other States Parties the extent to which the reserving state has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. Furthermore, the reservation to Article 3 seeks to exclude, at least partly, the application of one of the most central provisions which is related to all rights set forth in the Covenant.

Austria therefore considers both reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and objects to them. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Austria and the State of Qatar. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without Qatar benefitting from the aforementioned reservations.

The Swiss Federal Council has examined the reservation and the statement made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 16 December 1966.

The Swiss Federal Council considers that the declaration of Qatar concerning article 8 of the Covenant amounts, in fact, to a reservation.

Reservations subjecting all or part of article 3 and article 8 of the Covenant in general terms to Islamic Sharia and/or national legislation constitute reservations of general scope which raise doubts about the full commitment of the State of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Covenant. The Swiss Federal Council recalls that, according to sub-paragraph (c) of article 19 of the Vienna Convention of 23 May 1969 on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant are not permitted.

It is in the common interest of States that instruments to which they have chosen to become parties be respected in their object and purpose by all parties, and that States be prepared to amend their legislation in order to fulfil their treaty obligations.

Henceforth, the Swiss Federal Council objects to these reservations of the State of Qatar. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant, in its entirety, between Switzerland and the State of Qatar.

The Government of the Czech Republic has examined the reservation and statement formulated by the State of Qatar upon its accession to the International Covenant· on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The Government of the Czech Republic is of the view that both the reservation formulated by the State of Qatar with respect to Article 3 of the Covenant and the statement with respect to Article 8 of the Covenant amount to reservations of general and vague nature, since they make the application of specific provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia and national law and their character and scope cannot be properly assessed.

The Government of the Czech Republic wishes to recall that the reservations may not be general or vague and that the Covenant is to be applied and interpreted in accordance with international law.

The Government of the Czech Republic therefore considers the aforementioned reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and objects to them. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Czech Republic and the State of Qatar, without the State of Qatar benefitting from the reservations.

Ireland welcomes the accession of Qatar to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on 21 May 2018.

Ireland has examined the reservation and statement made by Qatar to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at the time of its accession. Ireland is of the view that the reservation by Qatar, purporting to exclude its obligations under Article 3, is contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

Ireland is furthermore of the view that the statement by Qatar, purporting to subject the implementation of Article 8 to national law, in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the Covenant.

Ireland considers that such reservations, which purport to subject the reserving State’s obligations under an international agreement to national law without specifying the content thereof and which do not clearly specify the extent of the derogation from the provisions of the international agreement, may cast doubt on the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the international agreement.

Ireland is furthermore of the view that such a reservation may undermine the basis of international treaty law and is incompatible with the object and purpose of the international agreement. Ireland recalls that under international treaty law a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the international agreement shall not be permitted.

Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by Qatar to Articles 3 and 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between Ireland and Qatar.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the contents of the reservation to Article 3 and of the statement regarding Article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights made by the State of Qatar.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the reservation to Article 3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is contrary to the object and purpose of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Furthermore, it considers that the statement regarding Article 8 of the Covenant is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Covenant on a unilateral basis.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under [the] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by invoking the domestic law or/and religious beliefs and principles [raise] doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention, as such reservations are likely to deprive the provisions of the Convention of their effect and are contrary to the object and purpose thereof.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic recalls 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 the Covenant shall not be permitted.

Thus, the Government of the Portuguese Republic objects to these reservations.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Portuguese Republic and the State of Qatar.

Romania has examined the reservation and the declaration made upon [accession] by the State of Qatar to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (New York, 1966).

Romania considers that the reservation aiming to interpret the Article 3 of the Covenant in the light of the Islamic sharia and the declaration aiming at interpreting the Article 8 of the Covenant in the light with the national legislation qualifies them as reservations of undefined character, inadmissible under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In accordance with Article 27 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, it is the duty of States Parties to a treaty to ensure that their internal law allows the application and observance of the treaty.

Moreover, the general nature of the reservations limits the understanding as to the extent of the obligations assumed by State of Qatar under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Therefore, Romania objects to the reservations formulated by State of Qatar to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as being incompatible with the scope and purpose of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as required by the Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

This objection shall not affect the entry into force of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights between Romania and State of Qatar.

[...] the Government of the Kingdom of Norway has carefully examined the reservation and the statement made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 16 December 1966.

The reservation to Article 3 and the statement concerning Article 8 make these provisions subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. Both declarations are thus formulated as reservations.

The Government of the Kingdom of Norway is of the view that by making the application of Article 3 and Article 8 of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national law, the State of Qatar has submitted reservations which raise doubts as to the full commitment of the State of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Government of the Kingdom of Norway thus objects to these reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Kingdom of Norway and the State of Qatar.

The Kingdom of Belgium has carefully examined the reservation and statement made by the State of Qatar upon its accession, on 21 May 2018, to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The reservation to article 3 and the statement concerning article 8 make the provisions of the Covenant subject to their compatibility with the Sharia or national legislation. The Kingdom of Belgium considers that this reservation and this declaration tend to limit the responsibility of the State of Qatar under the Covenant by means of a general reference to the rules of national law and Sharia. This creates uncertainty as to the extent to which the State of Qatar intends to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant and raises doubts about the State of Qatar's compliance with the object and purpose of the Covenant.

The Kingdom of Belgium recalls that under article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, a State cannot make a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty.

Moreover, article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties stipulates that a party may not invoke the provisions of its national law as justifying the non-fulfilment of a treaty. Accordingly, the Kingdom of Belgium objects to the reservation made by the State of Qatar with respect to article 3 and to its statement in respect of article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The Kingdom of Belgium specifies that this objection does not preclude the entry into force of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights between the Kingdom of Belgium and the State of Qatar.

The Government of the Italian Republic has carefully examined the reservation and statement by the State of Qatar with regard to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 16 December 1966.

Both the reservation to Article 3 and the statement concerning Article 8 make the application of these provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. The statement concerning Article 8 is thus of its nature also a reservation.

The Government of the Italian Republic is of the opinion that by making the application of Article 3 and Article 8 of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national law, the State of Qatar has submitted reservations which raise doubts concerning the extent to which it intends to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant.

The above-mentioned reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and are accordingly not permitted under customary international law, as codified in Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969. The Italian Republic thus objects to these reservations.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Italian Republic and the State of Qatar.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has examined the reservation and declaration made by the State of Qatar on ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (‘the Covenant’), done at New York on 16 December 1966, which read:

Reservation

The State of Qatar does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, for they contravene the Islamic Sharia with regard to questions of inheritance and birth.

Declaration

The State of Qatar shall interpret that what is meant by “trade unions” and their related issues stated in Article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Right[s], is in line with the provisions of the Labor Law and national legislation. The State of Qatar reserves the right to implement that article in accordance with such understanding.

In respect of the reservation to Article 3, the Government of the United Kingdom understands this to mean that the State of Qatar considers itself bound by the provisions of Article 3, except with regard to questions of inheritance and birth, and will interpret the State of Qatar’s obligations under the Covenant accordingly.

The Government of the United Kingdom considers that the Government of the State of Qatar’s declaration in respect of Article 8, which seeks to subject its obligations under the Covenant to the provisions of its own national legislation, is a reservation which seeks to limit the scope of the Covenant on a unilateral basis. The Government of the United Kingdom notes that a reservation to a convention which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the convention. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore objects to this reservation made by the Government of the State of Qatar.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the State of Qatar.

The Government of the Hellenic Republic has examined the reservation and the statement made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 16 December 1966 (hereinafter ‘the Covenant’).

In the above reservation, the State of Qatar states that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 3 of the Covenant ‘for they contravene the Islamic Sharia with regard to questions of inheritance and birth’.

Moreover, in the statement made upon accession to the Covenant, the Government of the State of Qatar declares that it shall implement Article 8 of the Covenant based on the understanding that ‘what is meant by ‘trade unions’ and their related issues [...] is in line with the provisions of the Labor Law and national legislation’. However, in the view of the Government of the Hellenic Republic, this statement in fact amounts to a reservation as it limits the scope of application of Article 8 solely to the extent that it does not contravene the relevant national legislation of Qatar.

The Government of the Hellenic Republic notes that the above reservations are of a general and indeterminate scope, as they purport to subject the application of the aforementioned provisions of the Covenant to the Islamic sharia and national legislation, without, however, specifying the content thereof, and are, accordingly, contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant, since they do not clearly define for the other States Parties the extent to which Qatar has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. For the above reasons, the Government of the Hellenic Republic considers the aforesaid reservations of Qatar impermissible as contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant, according to customary international law, as codified by the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties.

The Government of the Hellenic Republic, therefore, objects to the abovementioned reservations made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Hellenic Republic and the State of Qatar.

The Government of the Republic of Moldova has carefully examined the reservation and statement made by the State of Qatar on May 21, 2018 upon accession to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 16 December 1966.

Both the reservation to Article 3 and the statement concerning Article 8 make the application of these provisions of the Covenant subject to the Islamic Sharia or national legislation. The statement concerning Article 8 is thus of its nature also a reservation.

The Republic of Moldova considers that the reservations regarding Articles 3 and 8 of the Covenant are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant since these articles form an essential element of the Covenant, and are accordingly not permitted under Article 19 sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969.

Therefore, the Republic of Moldova objects to the aforementioned reservations made by the State of Qatar.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Moldova and the State of Qatar. The Covenant enters into force in its entire[t]y between the Republic of Moldova and the State of Qatar, without the State of Qatar benefiting from its reservation.

The Government of Canada has carefully examined the reservation and statement made by the Government of Qatar upon ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The Government of Canada notes that the reservation made by the Government of Qatar, addressing an essential provision of the Covenant and aiming to exclude the obligations under that provision, is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, and thus inadmissible under article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The Government of Canada notes that the statement made by the Government of Qatar aims at applying a provision of the Covenant only in conformity with domestic law or Islamic Sharia. However, the Covenant is to be applied in accordance with international law. The Government of Canada considers that this statement is a reservation in disguise, incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant, and thus inadmissible under article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The Government of Canada considers that a reservation consisting of a general reference to national law or Islamic Sharia makes it impossible to identify the modifications to obligations under the Covenant, which it purports to introduce. With this reservation, the other States Parties do not know the extent to which Qatar has accepted the obligations to ensure the equal rights of men and women. This uncertainty is unacceptable, especially in the context of a human rights treaty.

It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become Party 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 Canada therefore objects to the reservation and statement made by the Government of Qatar. This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Covenant between Canada and Qatar.

The Government of Sweden has examined the statement and the reservation made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In this context the Government of Sweden would like to recall, that under well-established international treaty law, the name assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified, does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. Thus, the Government of Sweden considers that the statement made by the State of Qatar concerning Article 8, in the absence of further clarification, in substance constitutes a reservation to the [Covenant].

The Government of Sweden notes that the interpretation and application of Article 3 and Article 8 are made subject to in general terms to Islamic sharia and/or national legislation. The Government of Sweden is of the view that such reservations, which does not clearly specify the extent of the derogations, raises doubt as to the commitment of the State of Qatar to the object and purpose of the [Covenant].

According to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the [Covenant] 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.

For this reason, the Government of Sweden objects to the aforementioned reservations made by the Government of Qatar. The [Covenant] shall enter into force in its entirety between the two States, without Qatar benefitting from its reservations.

… [the Government of Oman makes] a reservation in respect of article 8, paragraph 1, subparagraphs (a) and (d) of that Covenant, regarding the right to form trade unions and the right to strike, in so far as the employees of government units are concerned.