Partijen en gegevens

Balaenoptera musculus

Megaptera novaeangliae

Balaena mysticetus

Eubalaena spp.

The ratification concerns the entire Kingdom of Denmark, including Greenland and the Faroe Islands. However, the Convention will not be implemented on the Faroe Islands until the Faroe authorities have put in place the necessary legislation, which is expected to occur in the near future. In this regard, it should be noted that legislative powers on matters concerning, among other things, the protection of nature, including the protection of species of wild flora and fauna, were transferred to the Faroe Islands under Danish law no. 137 of 23 March 1948. As very little trade in the endangered species of wild fauna and flora included in the Convention takes place on the Faroe Islands – what trade there is essentially taking place via Denmark – the delayed entry into force of the Convention on the Faroe Islands will have little actual impact on the achievement of the Convention's objectives.

The question concerning the territorial application of the Convention to the Faroe Islands having been raised, Denmark would like to recall the declaration that it made when it ratified the Convention on 26 July 1977 and clarify its goal and intention, namely: until further notice, the Convention will not apply to the Faroe Islands. This has been the Danish government's position since the ratification of the Convention by Denmark, and will continue to be until further notice.

The Malvinas are part of the territory of the Argentine Republic and, administratively, fall under the National Territory of Tierra del Fuego, the Antarctic and the South Atlantic Islands. The occupation of the islands by the United Kingdom, by means of an act of force never accepted by the Argentine Republic, has led the United Nations Organi-sation, in resolutions 2065 and 3160, to invite the two parties to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict of sovereignty with regard to the afore-mentioned islands. Negotiations are ongoing.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have no doubt as to United Kingdom sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and their Dependencies. The United Kingdom Government therefore do not accept the declaration of the Argentine Republic claiming that the Falkland Islands are an integral part of the territory of the Argentine Republic and administered by the National Territory of Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica and the Islands of the South Atlantic.

Argentina's declaration of 8 January 1981, rejecting the declaration of territorial application presented by the United Kingdom on 2 August 1976, applies – as is clear from the wording – to all the territories that the country claimed or claims are included under the name Malvinas and Dependencies'.

The Republic of Botswana, while accepting generally Appendix I makes a reservation in the case of Crocodile*,

Further,

The Republic of Botswana submits the following list of animals and their durable recognisable derivatives, for inclusion in Appendix III in accordance with Article XVI:

The Government of the Republic of Suriname declares hereby that the Republic of Suriname accedes to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, with a reservation to the effect that the provisions of this Convention will not apply to the Chelonia mydas (green turtle) and Dermochelys coriacae (leatherback turtle) mentioned in Appendix I of the Convention.

In acceding to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora which was concluded at Washington, D.C. in the United States of America, on 3rd March, 1973, the Government of the Republic of Zambia considers that the crocodile species referred to in Appendix I of the Convention as Crocodylus Cataphratus and Crocodylus Niloticus are not threatened with extinction which is or might be affected by trade and that they should not be included in that appendix or any of the other two appendices of the Convention. Accordingly, any measures the Government may take with a view to promoting trade in specimens of the two species would be consistent with the general purposes of the Convention.

The Government of the Republic of Zambia considers further that species whose names appear hereunder should be included in the Convention under appendices respectively indicated:

The reservations entered by the Government of the Republic of Zambia, at the time of its accession to the Convention, with regard to Crocodylus cataphractus and Crocodylus niloticus are in conformity with Article XXIII of the Convention.

The other reservations entered by the Government of the Republic of Zambia are not in conformity with the present contents and terminology of Appendices I and II of the Convention; in particular.

The Government of Zimbabwe hereby accedes to the Convention with the reservations formally expressed concerning the trade of crocodiles’. Cette réserve concerne le Crocodile de Nil (Crocodylus niloticus).

The first Conference of the Parties held in Berne in November 1976 proposed certain amendments to the Appendices which will come into force for all parties to the Convention on 4 February.

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article XV of the Convention, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wishes to enter a reservation on behalf of Hong Kong for the African elephant, Loxodonta Africana, which was added to Appendix II of the Convention at the Berne Conference.

In entering this reservation I have been asked to indicate that contrary to the interpretation of the effect of a reservation given in article XV paragraph 3 of the Convention, Australia does not and does not intend to engage in trade in Fin and Sei Whales products. The reservation is intended to preserve Australia's position pending discussions at the next session of the International Whaling Commission which will meet in Canberra later in June.

The trade in whales takes the form of whale products. Ready identification of products of different stocks of the same whale species is not possible and difficulties are therefore anticipated in the application of the required control measures on international trade.

The Government of Canada, in accordance with the provisions of Article XXIII enters reservations for the following species which were placed in Appendices I and II at the Second General Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, San José, Costa Rica, 19-30 March 1979.

Appendix I

Sotalia spp.

Sousa spp.

Neophocaena phocaenoides

Appendix II

CETACEA spp.

Previously placed reservation on Appendix I species remain under reservation. These are:

Eschrichtius robustus (glacus)

Balaenoptera borealis

Balaenoptera physalus

With the exception of six species (Platanista minor, Lipotes vexillifer, Phocaena sinus, Sotalia spp., Sousa spp., and Neophocaena phocaenoides) which were included in Appendix I, all whales and dolphins not presently in the Appendices were added as a group to Appendix II. In our opinion, adequate biological data, in the form of status reports, were not provided to allow for the inclusion of all these animals in the Appendices.

It is the Canadian view that the listing of entire groups of animals in the Appendices without adequate scientific and technical justification is open to criticism and may indeed weaken the impact of the Convention as it applies to those species truly in need of special protection.

The Small Cetaceans Sub-committee of the International Whaling Commission has reviewed this group of animals on a worldwide basis and has identified only three species (P. minor. L. vexillifer and P. sinus) of small cetaceans which are in need of special protection under CITES. Canadian reservations have not been placed against these three species.

We wish to advise the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the Government of Canada intends to withdraw its reservations on the listing of Cetacea spp. in Appendix II on the basis of the application of Article II, Paragraph 2(b) of the Convention.

At the next meeting of the Parties, however, Canada will request that, for purposes of identification, an appropriate annotation be given to each of the species listed in Appendix II which is listed on the basis of Article II, Paragraph 2(b), i.e. the ‘look-alike’ provision. It remains the Canadian view that no species should be placed on Appendix I or II without proper scientific and technical justification in relation to the Appendix definition in Article II of the Convention.

The Canadian authorities would be grateful if the Government of the Swiss Confederation, as the depository government under the Endangered Species Convention, could circulate this note to all signatories to the Convention.

… The purpose of the note of 8 July 1980 was to advise the Secretariat and Parties to the Convention that the Canadian reservation with respect to the listing of Cetacea spp. in Appendix II on the basis of the application of Article II, II, Paragraph 2(b) of the Convention was, from that moment on, withdrawn. The Canadian Embassy regrets any misunderstandings that may have arisen because of the ambiguous wording of the previous note.

Appendix I

Sotalia spp., humpback dolphins

Sousa spp., humpback dolphins

Neophocaena phocaenoides, black finless porpoise

Balaenoptera borealis, sei whale

Balaenoptera physalus, fin whale

Branta Canadensis leucoparcia, aleutian Canada goose

Coregonus alpenae, longjaw cisco

Stizostedion vitreum glaucum, blue walleye.

Appendix II

Ursus arctos, brown (grizzly) bear

Ovis canadensis, bighorn sheep

Anser albifrons gambelli, tule whitefronted goose

Sei whale comprises North Pacific and South Atlantic stocks.

Fin whale includes all stocks except stocks in the North Atlantic off Iceland and Newfoundland, and stocks in the Southwest Atlantic and Southeast Pacific oceans. Brown bear comprises all North American subspecies

Appendix I — Eschrichtius robustus (glaucus), gray whale

Appendix II — Acipenser fulvescens, lake sturgeon ’

The South African government wishes to make a reservation in respect of the following amendments to the Appendices of the Convention:

to transfer the following species and stocks from Appendix II to Appendix I of the Convention, and that the species and stocks will be treated as those included in Appendix II of the Convention.

At the recently concluded third meeting of the Conference of the parties in New Delhi, India, Appendix II of CITES was amended by adding to it all but three species of the order Psittaciformes not otherwise listed. This amendment was made largely on the basis of Article II, paragraph 2 (B), often known as the ‘look-alike’ provision. At the meeting, we indicated that we too were concerned about the traffic in Psittacines and had made proposals for listing a number of species. We also indicated, however, that we were greatly concerned with the administrative capability of all parties to issue meaningful permits for the export of these birds, and to enforce the Convention properly in their regard, that we did not believe that the ‘look-alike’ listing was fully justified in many cases, and that we were prepared to provide evidence that only 13 species of these birds presented serious enough identification problems to merit listing. When a vote was taken on the amendment, we voted in opposition to the broad listing.

The United States seriously considered entering a reservation on this listing to demonstrate concern over its appropriateness. We decided not to enter a reservation for a number of reasons, but instead to make known our concern through this communication.

The United States, which hosted the 1973 negotiating conference at which CITES was signed, was the first country to ratify CITES and continues to be a strong supporter of the treaty and its goals. We firmly believe that faith in the integrity of the appendices, both within the United States and in all other countries, is essential to assure the success of CITES. This integrity is maintained the development of principles and procedures for listing and through adherence to those principles and procedures by all the parties.

At New Delhi we joined with Canada in proposing criteria for the addition and deletion of ‘look-alike’ species. This was in keeping with our concern that massive listings of animals and plants either for monitoring purposes (not a proper basis for listing) or for ‘look-alike’ purposes where they are not justified would only weaken the integrity of the appendices and could serve as grounds for an initiative to adopt the so-called reverse listing concept. We strongly support the development and use of identification manuals to reduce problems in controlling trade in ‘look-alikes’. We seriously question the legality, administrative feasibility, or desirability of reverse listing and believe that, at a minimum, it requires a great deal of further study.

We believe that attention must be devoted to enhanced cooperation of authorities in importing countries regarding the interception of shipments of all wildlife species traded in violation of the conservation laws of exporting countries. While the United States has legislation providing authority for the interception of such shipments, most other countries do not. Listing large groups of species in Appendix II helps address this problem, but at the cost of reducing the integrity of the appendices. We suggest greater use of Appendix III to control illegal trade in species that do not fully meet criteria for inclusion in Appendix II.

We chose not to enter a reservation on the amendment to the listing of Psittacines because we believe better ways are available to resolve our different points of view. We also believe that the entering of reservations complicates the administration of the Convention for management authorities and enforcement officers and complicates compliance with CITES by persons involved in legitimate trade. However, we urge you to consider our concerns in the context of both the 10-year review of the appendices called for at the New Delhi meeting and the preparations for the fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties.

We look forward to further discussions of these and other points over the next several years as we work with you to make CITES a meaningful and effective tool for the conservation of wild animals and plants.

The Republic of Austria according to art. XV, para. 3 declares that a general reservation is made with regard to all amendments of the annexes I and II adopted at the 4th Conference of the Contracting Parties of the Convention on the international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora held in Gaborone, Botswana, from April 19 to 30, 1983.

… that a general reservation is made with regard to all amendments of the annexes I and II adopted at the 5th meeting of the conference of the parties to the convention held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, from April 22nd to May 3rd, 1985.

The Republic of Austria, according to Article XXIII, para. 2, lit. a), declares that she will apply the Convention under the reservation that the following species included in Appendix I ‘Crocodylus porosus’ and ‘Crocodylus cataphractus’ will be treated as if included in Appendix II.

The Republic of Austria, with reference to Article XV of the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, declares that a reservation is made with regard to the amendment of annexes I and II of the Convention proposed by the Royal Kingdom of the Netherlands as notified to Member States on February 26, 1986, in accordance with Article XV para 3.

Species with regard to which specific reservations are entered:

The Russian Federation continues to perform the rights and fulfil the obligations following from the international agreements signed by the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics. Therefore, the Ministry kindly requests to consider the Russian Federation as a Party to all international agreements in force instead of the USSR.

The Republic of Austria, with reference to Article XVI of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, declares that a reservation is made with regard to the Amendment of Appendix III of the Convention proposed by the Republic of Honduras as notified to the Member States on January 13, 1987, in accordance with Article XVI para 2.

Not applicable to Tokelau.

The Embassy of Japan presents its compliments to the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and, with regard to the Notification p.o. 412.30 on 25th June concerning the Acceptance of the amendment to Article XI (3)(a) of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild Fauna and Flora by the Soviet Union, has the honour to inform the latter the following view of the Government of Japan.

In accordance with article XVII (3) of the above-mentioned Convention, the amendment should enter into force for Soviet Union also 60 days after it deposits its instrument of acceptance of the amendment. The Government of Japan cannot find any grounds for justifying the entering into force of the above-mentioned amendment on 1st January 1991 as was designated by the Soviet Union.

On the occasion of the acceptance by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, for the Netherlands Antilles, of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, concluded at Washington on 3 March 1973, it is declared, in conformity with article IX of the Convention, that the Government of the Netherlands Antilles has designated as Management Authority:

Eric C. Newton

Section Environment and Nature

Department of Public Health

Heelsumstraat

Willemstad, Curaçao

Netherlands Antilles

Telephone: 59994655300

Fax: 5999462154

E-mail: milvomil@cura.net

The Scientific Authority will be designated subsequently.

I am instructed by Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to refer to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora done at Washington on 3 March 1973 and the Amendment to Article XI of the Convention done at Bonn on 22 June 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Convention’) which apply to Hong Kong at present.

I am also instructed to state that, in accordance with the Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong signed on 19 December 1984, the Government of the United Kingdom will restore Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China with effect from 1 July 1997. The Government of the United Kingdom will continue to have international responsibility for Hong Kong until that date. Therefore, from that date the Government of the United Kingdom will cease to be responsible for the international rights and obligations arising from the application of the Convention to Hong Kong …

In accordance with the provisions of Articles XV, XVI and XXIII of this Convention, Namibia enters the following reservations:

Species included in Appendix I:

In the view of Iceland the inclusion of some species in the appendices of the Convention is inconsistent with Article II of the Convention and the biological criteria agreed on within CITES for such inclusion. A number of the cetaceans which are included in the appendices are a good example of this.

It was decided that, upon acceding to the Convention, Iceland would only enter reservations with regard to the species that occur within its national jurisdiction which are, in the view of Iceland, inappropriately included in the appendices. This should, however, not be interpreted as Iceland's acceptance of the appropriateness of all other inclusions in the appendices.

If new scientific evidence will show that species regarding which Iceland has made reservations are in fact appropriately included in the appendices, Iceland will reassess the relevant reservations.

Iceland considers it to be important in order for CITES to fulfill its purpose that a review of all present inclusions in the appendices will be carried out in an effective and transparant manner and completed as soon as possible. The review should be objective and ensure that all inclusions in the appendices are consistent with Article II of the Convention and the biological criteria agreed on within CITES.

The accession of the Syrian Arab Republic to this Convention shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or entail entry into any dealings with Israel in the context of the provisions of the Convention.

The Government of the State of Israel has noted that the instrument of ratification of the Syrian Arab Republic to the abovementioned Convention contains declarations with respect to the State of Israel.

The Government of the State of Israel is of the view that such declarations, which are explicitly of a political nature, are incompatible with the purposes and objectives of this Convention.

The Government of the State of Israel therefore objects to the aforesaid declarations made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, 1973.

In accordance with Article XXIII, paragraph 2, subparagraph a, of the Convention, Iceland makes reservations with regard to the following species included in Appendices I and II:

Balaenoptera muscules in Appendix I

Balaenoptera physalus in Appendix I

Balaenoptera borealis in Appendix I

Megaptera novaengliae in Appendix I

Physeter macrocephalus in Appendix I

Hyperoodon ampullatus in Appendix I

Balaenoptera acutorostrata, Population of West Greenland in Appendix II, other populations in Appendix I

Globicephala melas in Appendix II

Orcinus orca in Appendix II

Lagenorhyncus albirostris in Appendix II

Lagenorhyncus acutus in Appendix II

Phocoena phocoena in Appendix II

Delphinus delphis in Appendix II

Tursiops truncatus in Appendix II

Upon acceding to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Iceland makes the following declaration:

In the view of Iceland the inclusion of some species in the appendices of the Convention is inconsistent with Article II of the Convention and the biological criteria agreed on within CITES for such inclusion. A number of the cetaceans which are included in the appendices are a good example of this.

It was decided that, upon acceding to the Convention, Iceland would only enter reservations with regard to the species that occur within its national jurisdiction which are, in the view of Iceland, inappropriately included in the appendices.

This should, however, not be interpreted as Iceland's acceptance of the appropriateness of all other inclusions in the appendices.

If new scientific evidence will show that species regarding which Iceland has made reservations are in fact appropriately included in the appendices, Iceland will reassess the relevant reservations.

Iceland considers it to be important in order for CITES to fulfil its purpose that a review of all present inclusions in the appendices will be carried out in an effective and transparent manner and completed as soon as possible. The review should be objective and ensure that all inclusions in the appendices are consistent with Article II of the Convention and the biological criteria agreed of within CITES.

Subject to the Article 23 (2), the Republic of Macedonia enters specific reservations on Appendix I, II and III, with regard to the species as listed:

…in accordance with article XVI, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Republic of Estonia formulates a reservation with reference to the inclusion of the following species in Appendix III of the Convention:

Vulpes vulpes griffithi

Vulpes vulpes Montana

Vulpes vulpes pusilla

Mustela erminea ferghanae

Mustela altaica

Mustela kathiah

Mustela sibirica

.. in accordance with article XVI, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Republic of Malta formulates a reservation with reference to the inclusion of the following species in Appendix III of the Convention:

Vulpes vulpes griffithii

Vulpes vulpes montana

Vulpes vulpes pusilla

Mustela altaica

Mustela erminea ferghana

Mustela kathiah

Mustela sibirica

In accordance with the Joint Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the Question of Hong Kong signed on 19 December 1984, the People's Republic of China will resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong with effect from 1 July 1997. Hong Kong will, with effect from that date, become a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and will enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs which are the responsibilities of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China.

In this connection, I am instructed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China to make the following notification:

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora done on 3 March 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Convention’) to which the Government of the People's Republic of China deposited its instrument of accession on 8 January 1981, will apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region with effect from 1 July 1997. The Government of the People's Republic of China also makes the following declaration:

In accordance with Article 9 of the Convention, it designates the Agriculture and Fishery Department of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region as the Management Authority; the Advisory Committee for the Protection of Rare Animals and Plant Species of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region as the Scientific Authority.

The Government of the People's Republic of China will assume responsibility for the international rights and obligations arising from the application of the Convention to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region …

In accordance with Article 9 of the Convention, it designates the Economic Service of Macao as the Management Authority of the Macao Special Administrative Region. The Government of the People's Republic of China shall assume responsibility for the international rights and obligations arising from the application of the Convention to the Macao Special Administrative Region.

Inwerkingtreding voor Macau op 20-12-1999.

The European Union declares that, in accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 192(1) thereof, it is competent for entering into international agreements, and for implementing the obligations resulting therefrom, which contribute to the pursuit of the following objectives:

The European Union declares that it has already adopted legal instruments, binding on its Member States, covering matters governed by this Convention, in particular but not limited to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ EU L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1) and the implementing Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 of 4 May 2006 (OJ EU L 166, 19.6.2006, p. 1).

Moreover the European Union declares that it is responsible for the performance of those obligations resulting from the Convention which are covered by European Union legislation in force.

The exercise of European Union competence is, by its nature, subject to continuous development.

With note verbale dated 28 January 2020, and received on the same day, the Federal Council of Switzerland has been requested by the European Union to bring to the attention of the Signatory and Acceding States an Annex on the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, specifying that it has been endorsed by the Member States of the Union, including the United Kingdom, which reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…] The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rejects the claims contained in the Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade of the Republic of Mauritius. The United Kingdom's full position in respect to our continued sovereignty over the British Indian Territory (BIOT) is set out in the United Kingdom's submission to the report of the Secretary-General (A/74/834) dated 18 May 2020. The United Kingdom has no doubt about its sovereignty over the territory of BIOT, which has been under continuous British sovereignty since 1814. Mauritius has never held sovereignty over the islands that now form BIOT and the United Kingdom does not recognise its claim. The Advisory Opinion issued by the ICJ is not legally binding and UN General Assembly Resolution 73/295 does not and cannot create any legally binding obligations for UN Member States.

The United Kingdom is also aware of the judgment delivered on 28 January 2021 by the Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) formed to deal with the dispute concerning delimitation of a maritime boundary claimed by Mauritius to exist between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean. The UK is not a party to these proceedings, which can have no effect for the UK or for maritime delimitation between the UK (in respect of BIOT) and the Republic of the Maldives. […]