Partijen en gegevens

[The Government of the United Kingdom declares that], in accordance with paragraph 3 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 8, the United Kingdom retains the right to deprive a naturalised person of his nationality on the following grounds, being grounds existing in United Kingdom law at the present time: that, inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to Her Britannic Majesty, the person

Declarations concerning article 8, paragraph 3 (a), (i) and (ii):

Austria declares to retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality, if such person enters, on his own free will, the military service of a foreign State.

Austria declares to retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality, if such person being in the service of a foreign State, conducts himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the interest or to the prestige of the Republic of Austria.

In accordance with paragraph 3 of article 8 of the Convention Ireland retains the right to deprive a naturalised Irish citizen of his citizenship pursuant to section 19 (1) (b) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956, on grounds specified in the aforesaid paragraph.

The Federal Republic of Germany will apply the said Convention:

With reservations in respect of articles 11, 14 and 15.

[The Government of Tunisia] declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 11 concerning the establishment of a body responsible for assisting in the presentation of claims to obtain nationality to the appropriate authorities, or of article 14, which provides for the competence of the International Court of Justice to rule on disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.

The Republic of Tunisia declares that, in accordance with article 8, paragraph 3, of the [Convention], it retains the right to deprive a person of Tunisian nationality in the following circumstances as provided for in its existing national law:

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the declaration to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness made by the Government of the Republic of Tunisia upon its accession to the Convention. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany holds the view that such a declaration seeks to limit the duty of a state not to deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless in an extent which is not covered by the exceptions of Article 8 paragraph 3 of the Convention. The declaration therefore restricts one of the essential duties of the Convention in a way contrary to the essence of the Convention. It is hence incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Tunisia in respect of Article 8 of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Tunisia.

The Government of Norway has examined the contents of the reservation and declaration made by the Republic of Tunisia upon accession to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

The Convention prohibits the deprivation of nationality if it will render the person in question stateless. This prohibition is subject to certain limitations. It is the position of the Government of Norway that paragraph 3 and 4 of the Tunisian declaration are not justified under the Convention. The said paragraphs of the declaration are contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, as they aim at limiting the obligations that States undertake when acceding to it, the core obligation being to reduce statelessness.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Tunisia. The Convention thus becomes operative between Norway and Tunisia without Tunisia benefiting from the said declaration.

The Government of Sweden has examined the declaration to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness made by the Government of the Republic of Tunisia upon its accession to the Convention. The Government of Sweden is of the view that this declaration seeks to limit the duty of Tunisia not to deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless in an extent which is not covered by the exceptions of Article 8 paragraph 3 of the Convention. The declaration therefore restricts one of the essential duties of the Convention and raises serious doubts as to the commitment of the republic of Tunisia to the object and purpose of the Convention.

It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. Furthermore, according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969, and well-established customary international law, a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted.

The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Tunisia in respect of Article 8 of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Tunisia and Sweden.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the above mentioned declaration. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands understands the declaration of Tunisia, in particular with regard to the grounds mentioned in Nos. 4 and 6 of the declaration, in respect of article 8 to extend the grounds on which a person can be deprived of Tunisian nationality.

The declaration therefore restricts one of the essential obligations of the Convention in a way contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Tunisia.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Tunisia.

The Government of Finland has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Tunisia to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The Government of Finland holds the view that such a declaration seeks to limit the duty of the Republic of Tunisia not to deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him or her stateless to an extent not covered by the exceptions of Article 8 paragraph 3 of the Convention. The declaration therefore amounts to a reservation which restricts one of the essential duties of the Convention in a way contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of Finland therefore objects to the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Tunisia in respect of Article 8 of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Tunisia and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without the Republic of Tunisia benefiting from the said declaration.

The Government of Spain has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Tunisia upon its accession to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The Government of Spain considers that such declaration intends to limit the obligation of a State not to deprive a person of his nationality if such deprivation entails a situation of statelessness in cases not covered by the exceptions of article 8 (3) of the Convention. The declaration therefore restricts one of the essential obligations of the Convention in a way contrary to its essence. It is thus incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Tunisia.

[New Zealand] declares that in accordance with paragraph 3 of article 8 of the Convention New Zealand retains the right to deprive a person of his New Zealand citizenship on the following grounds, being grounds existing in New Zealand law at the present time:

the person has, while a New Zealand citizen and while of or over the age of 18 years and of full capacity,

In reference to the instrument of accession relating to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, concluded in New York on 30 August 1961, the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil declares that, in accordance with Article 8, paragraph 3, sub-paragraph ‘a’, item ‘ii’ of the Convention, the Federative Republic of Brazil retains the right to deprive a person of his nationality when he conducts himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the Brazilian State.

The National Congress of Brazil approved the text of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness by means of Legislative Decree n. 274, of 4 October 2007. In accordance with Legislative Decree n. 274/2007, the text of the Convention is approved expressly with the restriction allowed for in article 8 (3) (a) (ii) of the Convention, so that the Federative Republic of Brazil retains the right to deprive a person of his nationality when he conducts himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the Brazilian State.

[In this regard, it is noted that the instrument of accession to the Convention deposited by Brazil with the Secretary-General on 25 October 2007 did not specify the above restriction, in accordance with article 8 (3) of the Convention.

As no objections were made by other Contracting Parties the above restriction was accepted for deposit on 29-12-2010.]

Upon acceding to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, the Government of Jamaica declares, pursuant to Article 8 of the Convention, that it retains the right under its laws to deprive a person of his or her nationality in the circumstances outlined in Paragraph 3 of that Article in the Convention.

[…] In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the Convention, […] the Republic of Lithuania declares that the Republic of Lithuania retains the right to deprive a person of his nationality on the grounds of the deprivation of nationality of the Republic of Lithuania, as provided for in paragraphs 4 and 6 of Article 24 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Citizenship.

– Declaration concerning article 2 of the Convention:

The Belgian Government declares that, for Belgium, the category of "foundlings" concerns found children who are believed to be newborn.

– Declaration concerning article 8, paragraph 3 of the Convention:

Belgium reserves the right to deprive of his nationality a person who did not acquire it by virtue of a Belgian individual on the day of his birth, or who was not granted it under the Belgian Nationality Code, in the cases currently provided for under Belgian legislation, namely:

[...] Georgia formally confirms the accession to the Convention and in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the Convention declares:

In accordance with the provisions of article 17 (1) of the Convention, the Republic of Colombia makes a reservation to article 14 to the effect that it does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with regard to the disputes that may arise between Contracting States concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.

On the occasion of its accession to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, adopted in New York on 30 August 1961, the Republic of Argentina objects and rejects the attempt to extend the territorial application of this instrument to the Malvinas Islands made by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland upon ratification.

The Argentine Government recalls that the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia Islands and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas are an integral part of the Argentine national territory and, being illegally occupied by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, are the subject of a sovereignty dispute between the two countries which is recognized by several international organizations.

In this connection, the General Assembly of the United Nations has adopted resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25, in which the sovereignty dispute referred to as the ‘Question of the Malvinas Islands’ is recognized and the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are urged to resume negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful and lasting solution to the dispute.

Concurrently, the Special Committee on Decolonization of the United Nations has repeatedly affirmed this view, most recently in its resolution adopted on 26 June 2014. Also, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States adopted, on 5 June 2014, a new pronouncement, in similar terms, on the question.

The Argentine Government reaffirms its legitimate sovereign rights over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia Islands and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas, as well as over the Argentine Antarctic Sector.

Declaration pursuant to article 8

Under article 8 (3) (a), the Government of Spain declares that it reserves the right to deprive a person of Spanish nationality when he enters voluntarily the service of the armed forces, or holds political office, in a foreign State against the express prohibition of the Government.

Declaration on the local nature of the authorities of Gibraltar

Considering the scope of the application of the present Convention, Spain wishes to formulate the following declaration:

... in accordance with the provisions of Article 8, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the Togolese Republic retains the right to deprive a person of the Togolese nationality, in application of Togolese legislation relating to Togolese nationality, in particular for the following reasons:

[...]

While the Federal Republic of Germany acknowledges that activities directed against the interests of the Togolese Republic, as referred to in the first indent of the reservation by Togolese Republic, may be compatible with Article 8(3 (a)(ii) of the Convention, it holds that the reservation to Article 8(3) of the Convention formulated in the second indent is not a permissible ground for deprivation of nationality under the exceptions allowed in the Convention. Therefore, the reservation by the Togolese Republic is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, which is to reduce statelessness.

The Federal Republic of Germany objects to the second indent of the reservation by the Togolese Republic. This objection does not affect the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Togolese Republic.

[...]

The Government of Finland was pleased to learn that the Togolese Republic has become party to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. However, the Government of Finland has carefully examined the declaration to the Convention made by the Togolese Republic upon accession and is of the view that it raises certain concerns.

The Government of Finland is of the view that the second indent of the declaration made by the Togolese Republic seeks to limit the obligation of the Togolese Republic not to deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him or her stateless to an extent not covered by the exceptions of Article 8, paragraph 3, of the Convention. The declaration therefore amounts to a reservation, which restricts one of the essential obligations under the Convention and is as such contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention and is accordingly not permitted under Article 19, subparagraph (c), of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The Government of Finland therefore objects to the reservation contained in the second indent of the declaration made by the Togolese Republic. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Finland and the Togolese Republic. The Convention will thus continue to operate between the two States without the Togolese Republic benefiting from the said reservation.

The Government of Sweden has examined the declaration to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness made by the Togolese Republic, by which the Togolese Republic expresses that ‘... in accordance with the provisions of Article 8, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the Togolese Republic retains the right to deprive a person of the Togolese nationality, in application of Togolese legislation relating to Togolese nationality, in particular for the following reasons:

The Government of Sweden is of the view that the second indent of the declaration seeks to limit the duty of the Togolese Republic not to deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him or her stateless to an extent which is not covered by the exceptions of Article 8 paragraph 3 of the Convention. The declaration therefore amounts to a reservation which restricts one of the essential obligations of the Convention and is as such contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Togolese Republic. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and the Togolese Republic. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without the Togolese Republic benefitting from its reservation.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the declaration made by the Togolese Republic upon its accession to the Convention on the reduction of statelessness on 14 July 2021. Since the declaration limits the legal effect of Article 8 of the Convention, the declaration is considered to be a reservation.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands acknowledges that activities prejudicial to the interests of the Togolese Republic, as referred to in the first indent of the reservation of the Togolese Republic, may be a ground for deprivation of nationality under the Convention. However, the ground for deprivation of nationality as set out in the second indent of the reservation of the Togolese Republic is not permissible under the Convention.

The second indent of the reservation would extend the exceptional grounds on which a person can be deprived of nationality leading to statelessness, thus restricting one of the essential obligations of the Convention in a way contrary to its object and purpose. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers this to be a reservation that is not permitted. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the second indent of the reservation made by the Togolese Republic.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Togolese Republic.

The Kingdom of Belgium has carefully examined the declaration made by the Togolese Republic upon its accession on 14 July 2021 to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, done at New York on 30 August 1961 (hereinafter “the Convention”), in accordance with Article 8, paragraph 3.

The Kingdom of Belgium considers that the fact of having been sentenced, for an act qualified as a crime under Togolese law, to more than five years of imprisonment without parole does not constitute a permissible ground for deprivation of nationality under the exceptions provided for by Article 8 of the Convention. Consequently, the Kingdom of Belgium considers that the second indent of the declaration made by the Togolese Republic constitutes a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention. It recalls that under the terms of Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State may not formulate a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty.

Consequently, the Kingdom of Belgium objects to the second indent of the declaration made by the Togolese Republic to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Togolese Republic.

Upon accession to the Convention of August 30, 1961 on the Reduction of Statelessness (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”) on March 24th 2022, the Republic of the Philippines among others declared,

In the view of the Federal Republic of Germany, the declaration under (a) is a general constitutional reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and thus an inadmissible reservation under Art. 17 para. 2 of the Convention.

Moreover, the declaration under (c) does not meet the requirements of Article 8 para. 3 of the Convention. Art. 8 para. 3 grants a Contracting State the right to deprive a person of his or her nationality even though this renders him or her stateless, if ‘it specifies its retention of such right on one or more of the following grounds.’

The declaration of the Republic of the Philippines, however, merely contains a general reference to Philippine laws that are not comprehensively named. The declaration thus does not provide the necessary specification and clarity necessary under the exceptional nature of the provision.

The Federal Republic of Germany objects both to the reservation of the Republic of the Philippines under (a) and to the declaration under (c).

This objection shall not prevent the entry into force of the Agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of the Philippines.