Partijen en gegevens

Reservation concerning article 9: The Government of the People's Republic of Albania considers that, in virtue of well-known principles of international law, all Government's ships owned or operated by a State, without exception irrespective of the purpose for which they are used, are subject to the jurisdiction only of the State under whose flag they sail.

‛ The Government of the People's Republic of Albania declares that the definition of piracy as given in the Convention is not consistent with present international law and does not serve to ensure freedom of navigation on the high seas. ’

Reservation concerning article 9: The Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria considers that the principle of international law according to which ships on the high seas are subject to the jurisdiction of the flag State applies without restriction to all government ships. ’

Declaration

The Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria considers that the definition of piracy given in the Convention does not cover certain acts which under contemporary international law should be considered as acts of piracy and does not serve to ensure freedom of navigation on international sea routes. ’

The Government of Denmark declares that it does not find acceptable:

The reservations made by the Governments of Albania, Bulgaria, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Mexico, Poland, Romania, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to article 9;

The reservation made by the Government of Iran to article 26, paragraphs 1 and 2;

The reservation made by the Government of Indonesia regarding the interpretation of the terms ‘territorial sea’ and ‘internal waters’.

The above-mentioned objections shall not affect the coming into force of the Convention, according to article 34, as between Denmark and the Contracting Parties concerned.

The German Democratic Republic considers that the definition of piracy given in Article 15 of the Convention does not cover certain acts which under international law in force should be considered as acts of piracy and does not serve to safeguard the freedom of navigation on the high seas.

The German Democratic Republic considers that Articles 31 and 33 of the Convention are inconsistent with the principle that all States pursuing their policies in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations shall have the right to become parties to conventions affecting the interests of all States.

‛ The German Democratic Republic considers that the principle of international law according to which a ship on the high seas is not subject to any jurisdiction except that of the flag State applies without restriction to all government ships. ’

The Government of the United States does not find acceptable the reservation[.] made by the German Democratic Republic to … article 9 of the Convention on the High Seas. The Government of the United States, however, considers [those Conventions] as continuing in force between it and the German Democratic Republic except that provisions to which the above-mentioned reservations are addressed shall appy[lees: apply] only to the extent that they are not affected by those reservations. ’

… The Government of Denmark also finds unacceptable the reservation made by the German Democratic Republic on the same date to article 9 of the Convention on High Seas.

The above-mentioned objection[.] shall not affect the coming into force of the Convention[.] as between Denmark and the German Democratic Republic. ’

Her Majesty's Government … desire to place on record their formal objection … to the reservation of the German Democratic Republic concerning article 9 of the Convention on the High Seas. ’

I am […] instructed to place on record the formal objection to the reservation of the Australian Government to the reservation by the German Democratic Republic concerning Article 9 of the Convention on the High Seas, 1958, and contained in the instrument of accession of the German Democratic Republic to that Convention. ’

The Government of Fiji declares that it withdraws the observations made by the United Kingdom with respect to the reservation made on ratification of the Convention on the High Seas by the Government of Indonesia and substitutes therefor the following observation:

With respect to the reservation made by the Government of Indonesia on ratification of the above-mentioned Convention on the High Seas, the Government of Fiji states that it considers that the extent of Indonesian national waters referred to therein is subject to the rule of international law that, where the establishment of a straight baseline has the effect of enclosing as internal waters areas which previously had been considered as part of the high seas, a right of innocent passage shall exist in those waters, subject to the regulations of the national authorities respecting police, customs, quarantine and control of pollution, and without prejudice to the exclusive right of such authorities in respect of the exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of such waters and of the subjacent seabed and subsoil.

Text of the reservation:

The Government of the Hungarian People's Republic is of the opinion that according to the general rules of international law, ships owned or operated by a State and used on government service, whether commercial or noncommercial, enjoy on the high seas the same immunity as warships. ’

Declaration:

The Government of the Hungarian People's Republic declares that the definition of piracy as given in the Convention is not consistent with present international law and does not serve the general interests of the freedom of navigation on the high seas. ’

‛ … that by the terms ‘territorial sea’ and ‘internal waters’ mentioned in the Convention, as far as the Republic of Indonesia is concerned, are interpreted in accordance with Article 1 of the Government Regulation in Lieu of an Act No. 4 of the Year 1960 (State Gazette 1960, No. 22) concerning Indonesian Waters, which, in accordance with Article 1 of the Act No. 1 of the Year 1961 (State Gazette 1961, No. 3) concerning the Enactment of All Emergency Acts and All Government Regulations in Lieu of an Act which were promulgated before January 1, 1961, has become Act, which Article word by word is as follows:

’

I am instructed to place on record the Government of Israel's formal objection to all reservations and declarations made in connection with the signing or ratification of or accession to the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone and the Convention on the High Seas which are incompatible with the purposes and objects of these Conventions. This objection applies in particular to the declaration or reservation made by Tunisia to article 16, paragraph 4, of the first of the above mentioned Conventions on the occasion of signature.

In depositing their instrument of ratification regarding the Convention on the High Seas concluded at Geneva on April 29th 1958, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declare that they do not find acceptable

the reservations to article 9 made by the Governments of Albania, Bulgaria, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;

the declarations made by the Governments of Albania, Bulgaria, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the definition of piracy given in the Convention, as far as these declarations amount to a reservation;

the reservations made by the Iranian Government to articles 2, 3 en 4, and to articles 2, paragraph 3, and 26, paragraphs 1 and 2;

the declaration made by the Government of Iran on article 2 as far as it amounts to a reservation to the said article;

the reservation made by the Government of Indonesia.

The Malagasy Republic formally expresses its objection to all reservations and statements made in connexion with signature or ratification of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone and the Convention on the High Seas or in connexion with accession to the said Conventions which are inconsistent with the aims and purposes of those Conventions.

This objection applies in particular to the statements or reservations made with regard to the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone by Bulgaria, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Colombia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Tunisia, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and to the statements or reservations made with regard to the Convention on the High Seas by Bulgaria, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Indonesia, Poland, Romania, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ’

The Government of Mexico enters an express reservation with regard to article 9, since it considers that government ships, irrespective of the use to which they are put, enjoy immunity; it therefore does not accept the limitation imposed in the article in question, which provides that only ships owned or operated by a State and used only on government non-commercial service shall have immunity from the jurisdiction of other States on the high seas.

The views of the United Kingdom Government regarding reservations and declarations made in connection with this Convention were set out in the letter of the 5th of November 1959 from the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

The United Kingdom Government now desire to place on record their formal objection to the reservation by the Government of Mongolia concerning Article 9 of this Convention. ’

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers the reservation made by the Government of the Mongolian People's Republic to Article 9 of the Convention of 29 April 1958 on the High Seas as well as the declaration made by the Government of the Mongolian People's Republic to Article 15 of that Convention, in so far as the latter is in substance to be qualified as a reservation, to be inconsistent with the aims and purposes of the Convention and therefore unacceptable.

The present declaration does not affect the applicability, in all other respects, of the Convention under international law as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Mongolian People's Republic. ’

Text of the reservation:

To article 9: The Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic considers that the principle of international law according to which a ship on the high seas is not subject to any jurisdiction except that of the flag State applies without restriction to all government ships.

Text of the declaration:

The Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic considers that the definition of piracy given in the Convention does not cover certain acts which under contemporary international law should be considered as acts of piracy and does not serve to ensure freedom of navigation on international sea routes.

‘The Government of the Polish People's Republic considers that the rule expressed in article 9 applies to all ships owned or operated by a State. ’

Declaration:

The Government of the Polish People's Republic considers that the definition of piracy as contained in the Convention does not fully correspond with the present state of international law in this respect. ’

Text of the reservation:

To article 9: The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics considers that the principle of international law according to which a ship on the high seas is not subject to any jurisdiction except that of the flag State applies without restriction to all government ships.

Text of the declaration:

The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics considers that the definition of piracy given in the Convention does not cover certain acts which under contemporary international law should be considered as acts of piracy and does not serve to ensure freedom of navigation on international sea routes.

‛ Spain's accession is not to be interpreted as recognition of any rights or situations in connexion with the waters of Gibraltar other than those referred to in article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht, of 13 July 1713, between the Crowns of Spain and Great Britain. ’

‛ With respect to the reservation made by the Government of Indonesia on ratification of the abovementioned Convention on the High Seas, the Government of Tonga states that it considers that the extent of Indonesian national waters referred to therein is subject to the rule of international law that, where the establishment of a straight baseline has the effect of enclosing as internal waters areas which previously had been considered as part of the high seas, a right of innocent passage shall exist in those waters, subject to the regulations of the national authorities respecting police, customs, quarantine and control of pollution, and without prejudice to the exclusive right of such authorities in respect of the exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of such waters and of the subjacent seabed and subsoil. ’

With the following reservation to article 9:

The Government of the Czechoslovak Republic holds that under international law in force government ships operated for commercial purposes also enjoy on the high seas complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. ’

Declaration:

The Government of the Czechoslovak Republic maintains that the notion of piracy as defined in the Convention is neither in accordance with the present international law nor with the interest of safeguarding the freedom of navigation on the high seas. ’

‛ The Government of the United States of America has received an inquiry regarding the applicability of several to the Geneva Law of the Sea Conventions of 1958 between the United States and States which ratified or acceded to those conventions with reservations which the United States found to be unacceptable. The Government of the United States wishes to state that it has considered and will continue to consider all the Geneva Law of the Sea Conventions of 1958 as being in force between it and all other States that have ratified or acceded thereto, including States that have ratified or acceded with reservations unacceptable to the United States. With respect to States which ratified or acceded with reservations unacceptable to the United States, the conventions are considered by the United States to be in force between it and each of those States except that provisions to which such reservations are addressed shall apply only to the extent that they are not affected by those reservations. The United States considers that such application of the conventions does not in any manner constitute any concurrence by the United States in the substance of any of the reservations involved. ’

‛ In depositing their instrument of ratification Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland declare that, save as may be stated in any further and separate notices that may hereafter be given, ratification of this Convention on behalf of the United Kingdom does not extend to the States in the Persian Gulf enjoying British protection. Multilateral conventions to which the United Kingdom becomes a party are not extended to these States until such time as an extension is requested by the Ruler of the State concerned. ’

The reservations to Article 9 made by the Governments of Bulgaria, the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Roumania, the Ukrainian SSR, and of the USSR.

The reservations to Articles 2, 3 and 4, and Article 2 (3) made by the Iranian Government.

Text of the reservation:

To article 9: The Government of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic considers that the principle of international law according to which a ship on the high seas is not subject to any jurisdiction except that of the flag State applies without restriction to all government ships.

Text of the declaration:

The Government of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic considers that the definition of piracy given in the Convention does not cover certain acts which under contemporary international law should be considered as acts of piracy and does not serve to ensure freedom of navigation on international sea routes.

‛ … The said Convention … shall also apply to Berlin (West) with effect from the date on which it enters into force for the Federal Republic of Germany. ’

‛ The Soviet Union can take note of the declaration by the Federal Republic of Germany concerning application to Berlin (West) of the Convention on the High Seas …only on the understanding that such application conforms to the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971 and is subject to observance of the established procedures. ’

‛ In respect of the application of the Convention on the High Seas to Berlin (West), the German Democratic Republic takes note of the Declaration on this matter made by the Federal Republic of Germany, with the reservation that the provisions of this Convention are to be applied to Berlin (West) in accordance with the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971 between the Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America and the French Republic according to which Berlin (West) is not a part of the Federal Republic of Germany and may not be governed by it. ’

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers the following reservations to be inconsistent with the aims and purposes of the Convention of 29 April 1958 on the High Seas and therefore to be unacceptable:

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany furthermore considers the reservation made on 27 December 1973 by the German Democratic Republic to Article 9 of the Convention to be inconsistent with the aims and purposes of the Convention and therefore to be unacceptable. This also applies to the declaration made by the Government of the German Democratic Republic on the same date to the definition of piracy as given in the Covention in so far as that declaration is to be qualified as a reservation.

The present declaration does not affect the applicability, in all other respects, of the Convention under international law as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Parties to the Convention having made the reservations and declarations referred to above. ’

The Government of France, the United Kingdom and the United States wish to point out that the German Democratic Republic is not a party to the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971, which was concluded in Berlin by the Governments of the French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America, and is not therefore competent to comment authoritatively on its provisions.

The above referred to communication contains an incomplete and therefore misleading reference to the Quadripartite Agreement. In this connection the Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States wish to draw attention to the fact that the provisions of the Quadripartite Agreement referred to in the communication states that ‘the ties between the Western Sectors of Berlin and the Federal Republic of Germany will be maintained and developed, taking into account that the se Sectors continu not to be a constituent part of the Federal Republic of Germany and not to be governed by it.

The Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States do not consider it necessary to respond to any further communications containing incomplete and misleading references to provisions of the Quadripartite Agreement from States which are not signatories to that Agreement. This should not be taken to imply any change in the position of those Governments in this matter. ’