Partijen en gegevens

‛ The Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the United Nations … has the honour to communicate, upon instructions of its Government, that the only lawful government authorised to represent China in international relations and assume international obligations on behalf of that State is the Government of the People's Republic of China. The Government of Pakistan does not recognize the Chiang-kai-shek regime, either as the Government of the State of China, or that of the island of Formosa, which is a territory of the State of China, and wishes to place on record that no legal relationship, whatsoever, is created for it by the attempt of the Chiang-kai-shek regime to become a party to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 ’

The Revolutionary Government of Cuba makes an explicit reservation in respect of the provisions of articles 48 and 50 of the Convention, because it considers that, in view of the nature of the contents of the Convention and the subject it concerns, all free and sovereign States have the right to participate in it; for that reason, the Revolutionary Government of Cuba favours facilitating the admission of all countries of the International Community, without any distinction based on the extent of a State's territory, the number of its inhabitants or its social, economic or political system.

‛ with reservation that paragraph 2 of article 37 shall be applied on the basis of reciprocity ’

Reservation concerning article 11, paragraph 1:

In accordance with the principle of the equality of rights of States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics considers that any difference of opinion regarding the size of a diplomatic mission should be settled by agreement between the sending State and the receiving State.

Declaration concerning article 48 and 50:

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics considers it necessary to draw attention to the discriminatory nature of articles 48 and 50 of the Convention, under the terms of which a number of States are precluded from acceding to the Convention. The Convention deals with matters which affect the interests of all States and should therefore 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 accession to a Convention of this nature.

…the participation of the so-called ‘Government of China’, as referred to in the Secretariat's letter, in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is illegal, since that Government represents no one and has no right to speak on behalf of China. There is in the world only one Chinese State, the People's Republic of China.

The Government of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic considers that the participation of the so-called ‘Government of China’ in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, done at Vienna on 18 April 1961, is illegal inasmuch as the said ‘Government’ does not represent the Chinese people and has no right to speak for China. The Government of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic considers that there is only one Chinese State, namely the People's Republic of China.

The Permanent Mission of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic to the United Nations… wishes to state that the Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic considers that participation in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations by the so-called ‘Government of China’ — as it is described in the Secretariat note — is illegal, since this Government does not represent the Chinese people and does not have the right to speak on behalf of China. The Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic takes the view that there is only one Chinese State in the world — the People's Republic of China.

The Government of the United Kingdom do not regard as valid the reservation to paragraph 2 of article 37 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by the United Arab Republic. Further, the Government of the United Kingdom do not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Convention made by the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers as incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention the reservation made by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic concerning article 11 of the Convention.

The Federal Republic of Germany is not a Party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice. In order to meet her obligations under article I of the Optional Protocol on the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, and in accordance with Security Council resolution of 15 October 1946 on the conditions under which the International Court of Justice shall be open to States not Parties to that Statute (resolution 9 (1946) adopted by the Security Council at its 76th meeting), the Federal Republic has issued a declaration accepting the competence of the International Court of Justice for the disputes named in article I of the Optional Protocol on the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. This declaration also applies to the disputes named in article IV of the Optional Protocol on the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes which arise from the interpretation or application of the Optional Protocol on the Acquisition of Nationality.

Under the Constitution of Venezuela, all Venezuelan nationals are equal before the law and none may enjoy special privileges; for that reason I make a formal reservation to article 38 of the Convention. (vertaling).

‛ …the Government of the Polish People's Republic considers the ratification of the above mentioned Convention by the so-called Government of China as null and void, since the only lawful Government authorized to represent China in international relations and to assume international obligations on behalf of this State is the Government of the People's Republic of China. ’

The Government of Canada does not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Convention made by the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as modifying any rights or obligations under this paragraph.

The Government of Canada does not regard as valid the reservations to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of article 37 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by the People's Republic of China. Similarly the Government of Canada does not regard as valid the reservations to paragraph 2 of article 37 of the Convention which have been made by the Government of the United Arab Republic (now the Arab Republic of Egypt), the Government of Cambodia (now Kampuchea) and the Government of the Kingdom of Marocco.

The Government of Canada does not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Convention made by the Government of the Mongolian People's Republic, the Government of Bulgaria, the Government of the German Democratic Republic and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

The Government of Canada also desires to place on record that is does[lees: that it does] not regard as valid reservations to paragraph 3 of article 27 of the Convention made by the Government of Bahrain and the reservations to paragraph 4 of article 27 made by the State of Kuwait and the Government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

The Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria considers the ratification by the so-called Chinese Government, representing the Chiang Kai-shek regime, of the Vienna Convention of 18 April 1961 on Diplomatic Relations to be null and void. The only lawful Government authorized to speak for China and to represent it in international affairs is the Government of the People's Republic of China.

…The Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria considers as null and void the ratification of the said Convention by South Korea, for the South Korean authorities cannot speak on behalf of Korea.

…[U]pon ratification of the Convention by the Republic of Korea, in 1971 the Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria[,] in [a] communication addressed to the Secretary-General with reference to the above-mentioned ratification,the Permanent Mission of Bulgaria to the United Nations stated that its Government considered the said ratification as null and void for the South Korean authorities could not speak on behalf of Korea.

Now therefore [the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria declares] that the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria, having reviewed the said declaration, hereby withdraws the same.

The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia does not regard the statements concerning paragraph (1) of Article 11 made by the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Mongolian People's Republic as modifying any rights or obligations under that paragraph.

The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia declares that it does not recognize as valid the reservations to paragraph 2, Article 37, of the Convention made by the United Arab Republic and by Cambodia.

The Government of Denmark does not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by the People's Republic of Bulgaria, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Mongolian People's Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph. Further, the Government of Denmark does not regard as valid the reservation to paragraph 2 of Article 37 made by the United Arab Republic, Cambodia and Morocco. This statement shall not be regarded as precluding the entry into force of the Convention between Denmark and the above-metnioned countries.

In the opinion of the Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania the ratification of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961 by the so-called authorities of Chiang Kai-shek is null and void, since the only Government entitled to assume obligations on behalf of China and to represent it in international relations is the Government of the People's Republic of China.

The Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania considers that the ratification of the Convention on Diplomatic Relations, signed at Vienna on 18 April 1961, by the ‘Republic of Korea’ is an illegal act for the authorities of South Korea can, in no case, act on behalf of Korea.

The Republic of Korea took part in the United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities, and contributed to the formulation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, done at Vienna on 18 April 1961, signed the Convention on the same day and duly deposited the instrument of ratification thereof with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 28 December 1970.

As the resolution 195 (III) of the General Assembly of the United Nations dated 12 December 1948 declares unmistakably, the Government of the Republic of Korea is the only lawful government in Korea.

Therefore, the rights and obligations of the Republic of Korea under the said Convention shall in no way be affected by any statement that has no basis in fact or unjustly distorts the legitimacy of the Government of the Republic of Korea.

The Government of New Zealand does not regard the statements concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by the People's Republic of Bulgaria, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Mongolian People's Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph. Further, the Government of New Zealand does not accept the reservation to paragraph 2 of Article 37 of the Convention made by Cambodia, Morocco, Portugal and the United Arab Republic.

The Government of the United States of America … states its objection to reservations with respect to paragraph 3 of article 27 by Bahrain; with respect to paragraph 4 of article 27 by Kuwait; with respect to paragraph 2 of article 37 by the United Arab Republic (now the Arab Republic of Egypt), by Cambodia (now the Khmer Republic) and by Morocco, respectively. The Government of the United States, however, considers the Convention as continuing in force between it and the respective above-mentioned States except for the provisions to which the reservations are addressed in each case.

The diplomatic immunities and privileges provided for in article 37, paragraph 2, of the aforementioned Convention, recognized and admitted in customary law and in the practice of States in favour of heads of missions and members of diplomatic staff of the mission, cannot be granted by the Royal Government of Cambodia for the benefit of other categories of mission staff, including administrative and technical staff.

Subject to the reservation with regard to article 8, paragraph 3, of the Convention, that the prior consent of His Majesty's Government of Nepal shall be required for the appointment to the diplomatic staff of any mission in Nepal of any national of a third State who is not also a national of the sending State. ’

In respect of article 11, paragraph 1, the Government of the Mongolian People's Republic maintains that any difference of opinion with regard to the size of a diplomatic mission should be settled by agreement between the sending and receiving States. (vertaling)

Referring to articles 48 and 50, the Government of the Mongolian People's Republic deems it necessary to draw attention to the discriminatory nature of articles 48 and 50 of the Vienna Convention and declares that, as the Convention deals with matters affecting the interests of all States, it should be open for accession by all States. (vertaling)

The Government of the Mongolian People's Republic considers null and void the signature and ratification by the Chiang Kai-shek regime of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

As is well known the Chiang Kai-shek clique has no rights whatsoever to speak on behalf of the Chinese people and that there is only one China — the People's Republic of China.

‛ The Republic of China, a sovereign state and Member of the United Nations, attended the 1961 Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities, contributed to the formulation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, signed the Convention on 18 April 1961 and duly deposited the instrument of ratification thereof with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 19 December 1969. Any statements or reservations relating to the afore-mentioned Convention, that are incompatible with or derogatory to the legitimate position of the Government of the Republic of China shall in no way affect the rights and obligations of the Republic of China under this Convention. ’

… article 37 of the Convention should be applicable on the basis of reciprocity only.

If the State of Kuwait has reason to believe that the diplomatic pouch contains something which may not be sent by pouch under paragraph 4 of article 27 of the Convention, it considers that it has the right to request that the pouch be opened in the presence of the representative of the diplomatic mission (concerned). If this request is refused by the authorities of the sending State, the diplomatic pouch shall be returned to its place of origin. (vertaling)

The Government of Kuwait declares that its accession to the Convention does not imply recognition of ‘Israel’ or entering with it into relations governed by the Convention thereto acceded.

‛ The Government of Israel has noted the political character of the declaration made by the Government of Kuwait on acceding to the above Convention. In the view of the Government of Israel, this Convention is 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 Kuwait an attitude of complete reciprocity. ’

With respect to paragraph 3 of article 27, relating to the ‘Diplomatic Bag’, the Government of the State of Bahrain reserves its right to open the diplomatic bag if there are serious grounds for presuming that it contains articles the import or export of which is prohibited by law.

…The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic raises objections against the abovementioned reservation and does not recognize that reservation submitted by the Government of the State of Bahrain.

The inviolability of diplomatic mail, mostly transported by diplomatic couriers, is absolute and unexceptional. It is the obligation of all States to ensure its inviolability and to abstain from its opening or detention.

The reservation is not compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention in the sense of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, it cannot be considered admissible since it is contrary to a valid norm of general international law and a fundamental provision of the Convention.

…This reservation is contrary to the principle of the inviolability of the diplomatic bag, which is recognized in international practice, and is therefore unacceptable.

The reservation made by the Government of Bahrain to the above-mentioned Convention is contrary to the principle of the inviolability of the diplomatic bag, which is generally recognized in international practice, and is therefore unacceptable to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland wish to put on record that they do not regard as valid the reservation to paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by the Government of Bahrain. ’

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany regards the reservation made by the Government of Bahrain in respect of paragraph 3 of article 27 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961 as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The reservation made by the Government of Bahrein to article 27 paragraph 3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, done at Vienna on 18 April 1961, is not compatible with the object and purpose of this Convention. It is contrary to fundamental principles of diplomatic international law. Therefore, the Polish People's Republic does not recognize this reservation as valid.

The reservation made by the Government of Bahrain to article 27, paragraph 3, of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is contrary to the principle of the inviolability of the diplomatic bag which is generally recognized in the international practice, and is compatible with the objectives of the Convention.

Therefore, the Hungarian People's Republic does not recognize this reservation as valid.

Le Gouvernement de la République populaire de Bulgarie ne saurait reconnaître la validité de la réserve formulée par le Gouvernement bahreinite au sujet du paragraphe 3 de l'article 27 de la Convention de Vienne sur les relations diplomatiques.

‛ …The accession of this Convention does not mean in any way recognition of Israel by the Government of the Sultanate of Oman. Furthermore, no treaty relations will arise between the Sultanate of Oman and Israel. ’

The ‘signature’ on and ‘ratification’ of this Convention by the Chiang Kai-shek clique usurping the name of China are illegal and null and void.

The Government of the People's Republic of China holds reservations on the provisions about nuncios and the representative of the Holy See in articles 14 and 16 and on the provisions of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of article 37.

The Government of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic does not recognize the validity of the reservations expressed by the People's Republic of China concerning paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of article 37 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not recognize the validity of the reservation expressed by the People's Republic of China concerning paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of article 37 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961.

The Government of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic does not recognize the validity of the reservation made by the Chinese People's Republic to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of article 37 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

The Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic does not recognize as valid the reservation to article 37, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by the People's Republic of China.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does not regard as valid the reservations to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Article 37 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by the People's Republic of China.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany does not regard as valid the reservations made by the People's Republic of China in respect of article 37 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961. This declaration is not to be regarded as preventing the Convention's entry into force as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the People's Republic of China.

The Government of the Hungarian People's Republic does not recognize the validity of the reservation made by the Chinese People's Republic to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of article 37 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

The Government of Ireland object to the reservations made by the Government of the People's Republic of China concerning the provisions relating to Nuncios and the representative of the Holy See in articles 14 and 16 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Government of Ireland do not regard these reservations as modifying any rights or obligations under those articles.

The Government of Ireland do not regard as valid the reservations made by the Government of the People's Republic of China to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of article 37.

This statement is not to be regarded as preventing the entry into force of the Convention as between Ireland and the People's Republic of China.

The Government of New Zealand does not regard as valid the reservations to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of article 37 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961 made by the Government of the People's Republic of China and considers that those paragraphs are in force between New Zealand and the People's Republic of China.

Le Gouvernement de la République française ne considère pas comme valides les réserves faites à l'article 37 de la Convention de Vienne sur les relations diplomatiques en date, à Vienne, du 18 avril 1961, par la République populaire de Chine. La présente déclaration ne sera pas considérée comme faisant obstacle à l'entrée en vigueur de la Convention entre la République française et la République populaire de Chine.

The Government of the Mongolian People's Republic does not recognize the validity of the reservation made by the Government of the People's Republic of China to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of article 37 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Reservation concerning Article 11, paragraph 1

In conformity with the principle of equality among States, the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen holds that any difference of opinion regarding the size of the diplomatic mission should be settled by agreement between the sending State and the receiving State.

Declaration

The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen states that its acceptance of the provisions of the Convention does not, in any way whatsoever, imply recognition of, or entering into contractual relations with, Israel.

‛ The accession of the United Arab Emirates to this Convention shall in no way amount to recognition of nor the establishment of any treaty relation with Israel. ’

The instruments of accession of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations contain a reservation, made by the Libyan Government in respect of para. 4 Art. 27 of the said Convention, covering the legal regime of diplomatic mail.

In this connection the Permanent Mission of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic to the United Nations wishes to inform the Secretary General that the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic does not consider itself to be bound by the above-mentioned reservation. ’

The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not consider itself bound by the reservation made by the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya concerning article 27 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. ’

‛ The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany does not regard as valid the reservation made by the Libian Arab Jamahiriya in respect of article 27 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961. This declaration is not to be regarded as preventing the Convention's entry into force as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Libiyan Arab Jamahiriya. ’

The principles of inviolability of diplomatic pouch and freedom of communication are generally recognized in international law and cannot be changed by unilateral reservation.

This objection does not prevent entry into force of the Convention as between the Polish People's Republic and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. ’

The Bulgarian Government does not consider itself to be bound by the reservation made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya concerning the application of article 27, paragraph 3, of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. ’

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany does not regard as valid the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic in respect of article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961. This declaration should not be interpreted as preventing the entry into force of the Convention as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Syrian Arab Republic.

The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not recognize the validity of the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on its accession to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, since that reservation is contrary to one of the most important provisions of the Convention, namely, that the diplomatic bag shall not be opened or detained.

The Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria does not consider itself bound by the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on its accession to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations regarding the immunity of the diplomatic bag and the right of the competent authorities of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to demand the opening of the diplomatic bag and, in case of refusal on the part of the diplomatic mission concerned, its return.

It is the understanding of the Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria that the reservation thus made is in violation of article 27, para. 4 of the 1961 Convention on Diplomatic Relations. ’

Reservations:

The diplomatic immunities and privileges provided for in article 37 paragraph 2 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, recognized and admitted in customary law and in the practice of States in favour of heads of missions and members of diplomatic staff of the mission, cannot be granted by the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Sudan for other categories of mission staff except on the basis of reciprocity only.

The Government of the Democratic Republic of the Sudan reserves the right to interpret article 38 as not granting to a diplomatic agent who is a national of or permanent resident in the Sudan any immunity from jurisdiction, and inviolability, even though the acts complained of are official acts performed by the said diplomatic agent in the exercise of his functions. ’

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany regards the reservations made by the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Sudan in respect of article 37, paragraph 2, and of article 38 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations on 18 April 1961 as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. This declaration is not to be interpreted as preventing the entry into force of the Convention as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Democratic Republic of the Sudan.

Understanding:

The Government of the Democratic Republic of the Sudan understands that its ratification of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 does not imply whatsoever recognition of Israel or entering with it into relations governed by the said Convention.

The People's Republic of Mozambique takes this opportunity to draw the attention to the discriminatory nature of the articles 48 and 50 of the present Convention which preclude a number of States from acceding to it. In view of its broad scope which affects the interests of all States in the world the present Convention should therefore be open for participation of all States.

The People's Republic of Mozambique considers that the joint participation of States in a convention does not represent their official recognition. ’

On the occasion of the accession of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it interprets the words ‘not, solely by the operation of the law of the receiving State’ in article II of the Optional Protocol concerning Acquisition of Nationality as meaning that acquisition of nationality by descent is not regarded as acquisition of nationality solely by the operation of this law.

On the same occasion the Kingdom of the Netherlands further declares as follows:

Australia does not regard as valid the reservations made by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the State of Bahrain, the State of Kuwait and the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, in respect of treatment of the diplomatic bag under article 27 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. ’

The Government of Malta does not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 made by the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.

The Government of Malta wishes to declare that paragraph 2 of article 37 shall be applied on the basis of reciprocity. ’

[The Government of Zambia] does not wish to maintain the objections and declarations formulated by the United Kingdom with respect to certain reservations and declarations on article 27(3), 37(2) and 11(1) of the said Convention. ’

The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not recognize as lawful the reservations of the Government of Yemen with respect to articles 27, 36 and 37 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, since those reservations conflict with the purposes of the Convention. ’

The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept the reservation made by the Yemen Arab Republic concerning article 37, paragraph 2, of the Convention. It takes the view that these provisions remain in force in relations between it and the Yemen Arab Republic in accordance with international customary law. ’

Australia does not regard as valid the reservations made by the State of Qatar and the Yemen Arab Republic in respect of treatment of the diplomatic bag under article 27 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961. ’

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany rejects the reservations made by the Yemen Arab Republic and the State of Qatar in respect of articles 27 (3) and 37 (2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961 as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic regards the reservations of the Yemen Arab Republic with respect to articles 27, 36 and 37 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961 as incompatible with the objects and purposes of this Convention. Therefore, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic does not recognize these reservations as valid. ’

The Government of the State of Israel has noted that the Instruments of accession of the Yemen Arab Republic to the [two above-mentioned] Conventions contain declarations in respect of Israel. In the view of the Government of the State of Israel, such declarations which are explicitly of a political character, are incompatible with the purposes and objectives of those Conventions and cannot in any way affect whatever obligations are binding upon the Yemen Arab Republic under general international law or under particular conventions.

The Government of the State of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter adopt towards the Yemen Arab Republic, an attitude of complete reciprocity. ’

The Government of the United States of America wishes to state its objections to the reservations regarding the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made with respect to paragraph 4 of article 27 by the Yemen Arab Republic and with respect to paragraph 3 of article 27 and paragraph 2 of article 37 by the State of Qatar, respectively.

…The Government of the United States, however, considers the Conventions as continuing in force between it and the respective above-mentioned States except for the provisions to which the reservations are addressed in each case. ’

The foregoing objections shall not, however, be regarded as preventing the entry into force of the Convention as between Thailand and the above-mentioned countries. ’

The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not recognize as valid the reservations of the Government of Qatar with respect to article 27, paragraph 3 and article 37, paragraph 2 of the 1961 Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Government of the USSR considers that the reservations in question are illegal, since they conflict with the purposes of the Convention.

The Government of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic does not recognize as valid the reservations of the Government of Qatar with respect to article 27, paragraph 3, and article 37, paragraph 2, of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Government of the Byelorussian SSR considers that the reservations in questions are illegal, since they conflict with the purposes of the Convention.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept both reservations made by the State of Qatar concerning article 27, paragraph 3, of the Convention. It takes the view that this provision remains in force in relations between it and the State of Qatar in accordance with international customary law. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is nevertheless prepared to agree to the following arrangement on a basis of reciprocity: If the authorities of the receiving State have serious grounds for believing that the diplomatic bag contains something which, pursuant to article 27, paragraph 4, of the Convention, may not be sent in the diplomatic bag, they may demand that the bag be opened in the presence of the representative of the diplomatic mission concerned. If the authorities of the sending State refuse to comply with such a demand, the diplomatic bag shall be sent back to the place of origin.

Furthermore, the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not accept the reservation made by the State of Qatar concerning article 37, paragraph 2, of the Convention. It takes the view that this provision remains in force in relations between it and the State of Qatar in accordance with international customary law. ’

With respect to paragraphs 3 and 4 of article 27 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961, the Government of Japan believes that the protection of diplomatic correspondence by means of diplomatic bags constitutes an important element of the Convention, and any reservation intended to allow a receiving State to open diplomatic bags without the consent of the sending State is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Therefore the Government of Japan does not regard as valid the reservations concerning article 27 of the Convention made by the Government of Bahrain and the Government of Qatar on 2 November 1971 and on 6 June 1986, respectively. The Government of Japan also desires to record that the above-stated position is applicable to any reservations to the same effect to be made in the future by other countries. ’

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland wish to place on record that they do not regard as valid the reservations to paragraph 3 of article 27, and to paragraph 2 of article 37, of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by the Government of the State of Qatar. ’

The Permanent Mission of Romania to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and has the honour to present the position of the Romanian Government concerning its communication following the deposit of the instrument of ratification of the Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Vienna, the 18th of April 1961) by the Republic of Korea, on the 28th of December 1970, which stated that this ratification was null and void.

Romania and the Republic of Korea have established diplomatic relations by signing a Protocol on the 31st of March 1990 and, therefore, the two States have been developing diplomatic relations on the basis of respect of the international law, including the relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention.

In the new historical context, the communication mentioned above became obsolete.

The Government of the United States of America does not believe the 'State of Palestine' qualifies as a sovereign State and does not recognize it as such. Accession to the Convention is limited to sovereign States. Therefore, the Government of the United States of America believes that the 'State of Palestine' is not qualified to accede to the Convention and affirms that it will not consider itself to be in a treaty relationship with the 'State of Palestine' 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.256.2014.TREATIES-III.3, dated 15 May 2014, conveying a communication of the United States of America regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, dated 18 April 1961.

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

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

The Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and has the honour to refer to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and the Secretary-General's communication of 9 April 2014, numbered C.N.176.2014.TREATIES-III.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 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Permanent Mission of Canada notes the technical and administrative role of the Depositary, and that it is for States Parties to a treaty, not the Depositary, to make their own determination with respect to any legal issues raised by instruments circulated by a depositary.

In that context, the Permanent Mission of Canada notes that 'Palestine' does not meet the criteria of a state under international law and is not recognized by Canada as a state. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, the Permanent Mission of Canada wishes to note its position that in the context of the purported Palestinian accession to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 'Palestine' is not able to accede to this convention, and that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 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.272.2014.TREATIES-III.3, dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Canada regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, dated 18 April 1961.

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

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

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 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 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.176.2014.TREATlESIII.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.290.2014.TREATIES-III.3, dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Israel regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, dated 18 April 1961.

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