Partijen en gegevens

The German Democratic Republic declares pursuant to article 29, paragraph 2 of the Convention that is[lees: it]does not consider itself bound by article 29, paragraph 1.

The Government of the Republic of Cuba makes a specific reservation concerning the provisions of article 29 of the Convention inasmuch as it holds that any disputes that may arise between States Parties should be resolved through direct negotiations through the diplomatic channel.

The People's Republic of Poland does not consider itself bound by article 29, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

The People’s Republic of China does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 29 of the Convention.

In accordance with article 29, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 29, paragraph 1, of the Convention, which provides that any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the present Convention which is not settled by negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, and that for such dispute to be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice in every case there must be agreement between all the parties involved in the dispute.

Pursuent to article 29, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 29, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to the effect that any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention which is not settled by negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice, and declares that for the submission of such a dispute to arbitration or its referral to the International Court of Justice the consent of all parties to the dispute must be obtained in each individual case.

The People's Republic of Bulgaria does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 29, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

In respect of article 9:

Reservation to the text of article 9, paragraph 2, concerning the granting to women of equal rights with men with respect to the nationality of their children, without prejudice to the acquisitions by a child born of a marriage of the nationality of his father. This is in order to prevent a child's acquisition of two nationalities where his parents are of different nationalities, since this may be prejudicial to his future. It is clear that the child's acquisition of his father's nationality is the procedure most suitable for the child and that this does not infringe upon the principle of equality between men and women, since it is customary for a women to agree, upon marrying an alien, that her children shall be of the father's nationality.

In respect of article 16:

Reservation to the text of article 16 concerning the equality of men and women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations during the marriage and upon its dissolution, without prejudice to the Islamic Sharia's provisions whereby women are accorded rights equivalent to those of their spouses so as to ensure a just balance between them. This is out of respect for the sacrosanct nature of the firm religious beliefs which govern marital relations in Egypt and which may not be called in question and in view of the fact that one of the most important bases of these relations is an equivalency of rights and duties so as to ensure complementarity which guarantees true equality between the spouses. The provisions of the Sharia lay down that the husband shall pay bridal money to the wife and maintain her fully and shall also make a payment to her upon divorce, whereas the wife retains full rights over her property and is not obliged to spend anything on her keep. The Sharia therefore restricts the wife's rights to divorce by making it contingent on a judge's ruling, whereas no such restriction is laid down in the case of the husband.

In respect of article 29:

The Egyptian delegation also maintains the reservation contained in article 29, paragraph 2, concerning the right of a State signatory to the Convention to declare that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of that article concerning the submission to an arbitral body of any dispute which may arise between States concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention. This is in order to avoid being bound by the system of arbitration in this field.

General reservation on article 2

The Arab Republic of Egypt is willing to comply with the content of this article, provided that such compliance does not run counter to the Islamic Sharia.

The Government of Sweden considers that the reservations regarding article 2, […] and article 16 are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2) and therefore objects to them.

In this context the Government of Sweden wishes to take this opportunity to make the observation that the reason why reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not acceptable is precisely that otherwise they would render a basic international obligation of a contractual nature meaningless. Incompatible reservations, made in respect of the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, do not only cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving states to the objects and purpose of this Convention, but moreover, contribute to undermine the basis of international contractual law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by other parties.

The Federal Republic of Germany considers that the reservations made by Egypt regarding article 2, […] and article 16, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2) and therefore objects to them. In relation to the Federal Republic of Germany, they may not be invoked in support of a legal practice which does not pay due regard to the legal status afforded to women and children in the Federal Republic of Germany in conformity with the above-mentioned articles of the Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between Egypt and the Federal Republic of Germany.

The Government of the United Mexican States has studied the content of the reservations made by Egypt to articles […] and 16 of the Convention and has concluded that they should be considered invalid in the light of article 28, paragraph 2, of the Convention, because they are incompatible with its object and purpose.

Indeed, these reservations, if implemented, would inevitably result in discrimination against women on the basis of sex, which is contrary to all the articles of the Convention. The principles of equal rights of men and women and non-discrimination on the basis of sex, which are embodied in the second preambular paragraph and Article 1, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations, to which Egypt is a signatory, and in articles 2 and 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, were previously accepted by the Government of Egypt when it ratified […] the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The above principles were stated in article 2, paragraph 1, and article 3 of the former Covenant and in article 2, paragraph 2, and article 3 of the latter. Consequently, it is inconsistent with these contractual obligations previously assumed by Egypt for its Government now to claim that it has reservations, on the same subject, about the 1979 Convention.

The objection of the Government of the United Mexican States to the reservations in question should not be interpreted as an impediment to the entry into force of the 1979 Convention between the United Mexican States and Egypt.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservations made by Egypt regarding article 2, […] and article 16, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2).These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between Egypt and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

The Government of the French Republic declares that the preamble to the Convention in particular the eleventh preambular paragraph contains debatable elements which are definitely out of place in this text.

The Government of the French Republic declares that the term ‘family education’ in article 5 (b) of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning public education concerning the family and that, in any event, article 5 will be applied subject to respect for article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The Government of the French Republic declares that no provision of the Convention must be interpreted as prevailing over provisions of French legislation which are more favourable to women than to men.

Article 29

The Government of the French Republic declares, in pursuance of article 29, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that it will not be bound by the provisions of article 29, paragraph 1.

The Government of the French Republic declares that article 9 of the Convention must not be interpreted as precluding the application of the second paragraph of article 96 of the code of French nationality

Withdrawal of reservations relating to Articles 14.2(c), 14.2(h) and 16.1 (g) made upon ratification.

With regard to article 29 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Government of the Republic of India declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of this article.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the declarations made by India regarding article 5 (a) and article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention are reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2).

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the declaration made by India regarding article 16, paragraph 2, of the Convention is a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, para. 2).

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the above-mentioned declarations and reservations.

These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between India and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

The Socialist Republic of Romania declares that it does not consider itself to be bound by the provisions of article 29, paragraph 1, of the Convention, which stipulates that any dispute between States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention which is not settled by negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice. The Socialist Republic of Romania holds that such disputes shall be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice only when both parties to the dispute so agree in each individual case.

According to paragraph 2 of the article 29 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of the article 29 of the Convention, in compliance with which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the present Convention, which is not settled by negotiation shall, at a request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or be referred to the International Court of Justice, it is necessary to have an agreement of all the disputing parties in every separate case.

Pursuant to the provisions of article 29, paragraph 2, of the Convention, … the Republic of Venezuela declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions or article 29, paragraph 1.

Venezuela makes a formal reservation with regard to article 29, paragraph 1, of the Convention, since it does not accept arbitration or the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention.

The Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil hereby expresses its reservations of article 15, paragraph 4 and to article 16 paragraph 1 (a), (c), (g) and (h) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

Furthermore, Brazil does not consider itself bound by article 29, paragraph 1, of the above mentioned Convention.

The Argentine Republic rejects the extension of the territorial application of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 18 December 1979, to the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, notified by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland upon its ratification of that instrument on 7 April 1986.

The Argentine Republic reaffirms its sovereignty over the aforementioned archipelagos, which are integral part of its national territory, and recalls that the United Nations General Assembly has adopted resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12 and 39/6, in which a sovereignty dispute is recognized and the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom are urged to resume negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful and lasting solution to the dispute and their remaining differences relating to this question, through the good offices of the Secretary-General. The General Assembly has also adopted resolutions 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25, which reiterate its request to the parties to resume such negotiations.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland reject the statement made by the Government of Argentina on 4 April 1989 regarding the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have no doubt as to the British sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and their consequent right to extend treaties to those Territories.

… the United Kingdom declares that, in the event of a conflict between obligations under the present Convention and its obligations under the Convention concerning the Employment of Women on Underground work in Mines of all kinds (ILO Convention No. 45), the provisions of the last mentioned Convention shall prevail.

[…]

By the same communication, the Government of the United Kingdom also informed the Secretary-General for the avoidance of doubt, that the declarations and reservations entered in respect of the dependent territories on behalf of which the Convention was also ratified on 7 April 1986 continue to apply, but are under active review.

… The Government of the United Kingdom wish to withdraw from paragraph A c) of that reservation the words:

‘To the admission into or service in the Armed Forces of the Crown’

and to substitute the words:

‘Any act done for the purpose of ensuring the combat effectiveness of the Armed Forces of the Crown.‘

So that Paragraph A c) of the United Kingdom's reservation will then read:

In the light of the definition contained in Article 1, the United Kingdom's ratification is subject to the understanding that none of its obligations under the Convention shall be treated as extending to the succession to, or possession and enjoyment of, the Throne, the peerage, titles of honour, social precedence or armorial bearings, or as extending to the affairs of religious denominations or orders or any act done for the purpose of ensuring the combat effectiveness of the Armed Forces of the Crown.

The Cayman Islands reserves the right to continue to apply such immigration legislation governing entry into, stay in, and departure from, the Cayman Islands as it may deem necessary from time to time and, accordingly, its acceptance of Article 15 (4) and of the other provisions of the Convention is subject to the provisions of any such legislation as regards persons not at the time having the right under the laws of the Cayman Islands to enter and remain in the Cayman Islands.

I have the honour to refer to the extension of the ratification by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (‘the Convention’) to the territory of Bermuda. I have the further honour to inform you that the Government of Bermuda expresses its consent to be bound by the Convention, subject to the same declarations and reservations as those made in respect of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, except that they apply to the territory and its laws, and subject to the additional Reservations below.

The Government of Bermuda regards the Bermuda Constitution and the Human Rights Act 1981 as embodying the principle of equality of men and women as prescribed by Article 2 of the Convention. The Constitution enshrines the fundamental rights and freedoms of every person whatever that persons race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed or sex, and the Human Rights Act 1981 recognizes the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family and makes better provision to affirm these rights and freedoms and to protect the rights of all members of the community.

In the light of the definition contained in Article 1 of the Convention, the extension of the ratification of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on behalf of Bermuda is subject to the understanding that none of Bermuda`s obligations under the Convention shall be treated as extending to the affairs of religious denominations or orders or any act done for the purpose of ensuring the combat effectiveness of the Armed Forces of Bermuda.

As it may deem necessary from time to time, the Government of Bermuda reserves the right to apply Article 15 (4) and other provisions of the Convention, subject to section 11 (2) (d) and 11 (5) (c) of the Bermuda Constitution and section 27A of the Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act 1956.

Section 11 (2) (d) of the Constitution imposes restrictions on the movement or residence within Bermuda of any person who does not belong to Bermuda. Under section 11 (5) (c) a foreign national wife belongs to Bermuda if, by decree of a court or a deed of separation, she does not live apart from a husband who possesses Bermudian status, or a husband who has been granted a certificate of naturalization. However, section 11 (5) (c) does not apply to the foreign national husband of a wife who possesses Bermudian status. Section 27A of the Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act 1956 provides for an additional condition to apply to the foreign national husband of a wife who possesses Bermudian status in order for him to remain and reside in Bermuda, i.e. that he has no relevant convictions…

General

Article 9

The British Nationality Act 1981, which was brought into force with effect from January 1983, is based on principles which do not allow of any discrimination against women within the meaning of Article 1 as regards acquisition, change or retention of their nationality or as regards the nationality of their children. The Bailiwick of Jersey’s acceptance of Article 9 shall not, however, be taken to invalidate the continuation of certain temporary or transitional provisions which will continue in force beyond that date.

Article 11

The Bailiwick of Jersey reserves the right to apply all Jersey legislation and the rules of pension schemes affecting retirement pensions, survivors’ benefits and other benefits in relation to death or retirement (including retirement on grounds of redundancy), whether or not derived from a Social Security scheme.

This reservation will apply equally to any future legislation which may modify or replace such legislation, or the rules of pension schemes, on the understanding that the terms of such legislation will be compatible with the Bailiwick of Jersey’s obligations under the Convention. The Bailiwick of Jersey reserves the right to apply any non-discriminatory requirement for a qualifying period of employment or insurance for the application of the provisions contained in Article 11(2).

Article 13

The Bailiwick of Jersey reserves the right, notwithstanding the obligations undertaken in Article 13, or any other relevant article of the Convention, to continue to apply income tax legislation, pending proposed changes to these arrangements, which:

Article 15

In relation to Article 15, paragraph 3, the Bailiwick of Jersey understands the intention of this provision to be that only those terms or elements of a contract or other private instrument which are discriminatory in the sense described are to be deemed null and void, but not necessarily the contract or instrument as a whole.

The Bailiwick of Jersey reserves the right, notwithstanding the obligations undertaken in Article 15, paragraph 4, or any other relevant article of the Convention, to continue to apply the customary rule of law whereby a wife takes her husband’s domicile, pending the planned abolition of this law.

Article 16

The Bailiwick of Jersey reserves the right, notwithstanding the obligations undertaken in Article 16, paragraph 1(h), to continue to apply the customary rule of law whereby where a person dies intestate, with no issue, the distribution of immovable property may favour the paternal side of the family pending the abolition of this law, and noting that the abolition of vidute and changes to the rights of dower do not apply in relation to the estate of a person who died before 1 September 1993.

The Government of the Republic of Korea, having examined the said Convention, hereby ratifies the Convention considering itself not bound by the provisions of Article 9 and sub-paragraphs (c), (d), (f) and (g) of paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Convention.

The Government of the United Mexican States has studied the content of the reservations made by Republic of Korea to […] and article 16, paragraph 1 […] and (g) of the Convention and has concluded that they should be considered invalid in the light of article 28, paragraph 2, of the Convention, because they are incompatible with its object and purpose.

Indeed, these reservations, if implemented, would inevitably result in discrimination against women on the basis of sex, which is contrary to all the articles of the Convention. The principles of equal rights of men and women and non-discrimination on the basis of sex, which are set forth in the Charter of the United Nations as one of its purposes in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and in various multilateral instruments, have already become general principals of international law which apply to the international community, to which the Republic of Korea belongs.

The objection of the Government of the United Mexican States to the reservations in question should not be interpreted as an impediment to the entry into force of the 1979 Convention between the United Mexican States and Republic of Korea.

The Federal Republic of Germany considers that the reservations made by the Republic of Korea regarding […] and article 16, paragraph 1 […] and (g), are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2) and therefore objects to them. In relation to the Federal Republic of Germany, they may not be invoked in support of a legal practice which does not pay due regard to the legal status afforded to women and children in the Federal Republic of Germany in conformity with the above-mentioned articles of the Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Republic of Korea and the Federal Republic of Germany.

The Government of Sweden considers that the reservations regarding […] and article 16, paragraph 1 […] and (g) are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2) and therefore objects to them.

In this context the Government of Sweden wishes to take this opportunity to make the observation that the reason why reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not acceptable is precisely that otherwise they would render a basic international obligation of a contractual nature meaningless. Incompatible reservations, made in respect of the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, do not only cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving states to the objects and purpose of this Convention, but moreover, contribute to undermine the basis of international contractual law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by other parties.

The Government of the […] and article 16, paragraph 1 […] and (g), are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2).

These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Republic of Korea and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 29 (1) of the said Convention, relating to the settlement of disputes which may arise concerning the application or interpretation of the Convention.

With reservation as to the application of the provision of article 29, paragraph 1.

Socialist Ethiopia does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Convention.

The Government of Canada states that the competent legislative authorities within Canada have addressed the concept of equal pay referred to in article 11 (1)(d) by legislation which requires the establishment of rates of remuneration without discrimination on the basis of sex. The competent legislative authorities within Canada will continue to implement the object and purpose of article 11 (1)(d) and to that end have developed, and where appropriate will continue to develop, additional legislative and other measures.

In implementing this Convention, the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam will not be bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 29.

Austria reserves its right to apply the provision of article 7 (b), as far as service in the armed forces is concerned, and the provision of article 11, as far as night work of women and special protection of working women is concerned, within the limits established by national legislation.

Withdrawal of the remaining reservation to Article 11.

The Government of Australia states that maternity leave with pay is provided in respect of most women employed by the Commonwealth Government and the Governments of New South Wales and Victoria. Unpaid maternity leave is provided in respect of all other women employed in the State of New South Wales and elsewhere to women employed under Federal and some State industrial awards. Social Security benefits subject to income tests are available to women who are sole parents.

The Government of Australia advises that it is not at present in a position to take the measures required by article 11(2) to introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits throughout Australia.

The Government of Australia advises that it does not accept the application of the Convention in so far as it would require alteration of Defence Force policy which excludes women from combat and combat-related duties. The Government of Australia is reviewing this policy so as to more closely define ‘combat’ and ‘combat-related duties.’

Whereas on 28 July 1983, the Government of Australia ratified, for and on behalf of Australia and subject to certain reservations, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, done at New York on 18 December 1979;

The Government of Australia having considered the reservations, hereby withdraws that part of the reservations which states:

The Government of Australia advises that it does not accept the application of the Convention in so far as it would require alteration of Defence Force policy which excludes women from combat duties.

Australia has a Federal Constitutional System in which Legislative, Executive and Judicial Powers are shared or distributed between the Commonwealth and the Constituent States. The implementation of the Treaty throughout Australia will be effected by the Commonwealth State and Territory Authorities having regard to their respective constitutional powers and arrangements concerning their exercise.

The ratification of the Convention by Spain shall not affect the constitutional provisions concerning succession to the Spanish crown.

The Government of the Republic of Indonesia does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 29 paragraph 1, of this Convention and takes the position that any dispute relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention may only be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice with the agreement of all the parties to the dispute.

The Government of Jamaica does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 9, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

The Government of Jamaica declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 29, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Reservations:

The Government of New Zealand, the Government of the Cook Islands and the Government of Niue reserve the right not to apply the provisions of Article 11 (2)(b).

The Government of New Zealand, the Government of the Cook Islands and the Government of Niue reserve the right not to apply the provisions of the Convention in so far as they are inconsistent with policies relating to recruitment into or service in

…

The Government of the Cook Islands reserves the right not to apply Article 2(f) and Article 5(a) to the extent that the customs governing the inheritance of certain Cook Islands chief titles may be inconsistent with those provisions.

‛ The Government of New Zealand, the Government of the Cook Islands and the Government of Niue reserve the right, to the extent the Convention is inconsistent with the provisions of the Convention concerning the Employment of Women on Underground Work in Mines of all Kinds (ILO Convention No. 45) which was ratified by the Government of New Zealand on 29 March 1938, to apply the provisions of the latter. ’

The Government of New Zealand reserve[s] the right not to apply the provisions of article 11 (2)(b)

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

Réserves:

Article 7

L'application de l'article 7 n'affectera pas la validité des dispositions constitutionnelles, telles qu'elles sont prévues par l'article 60, réservant aux hommes l'exercice des pouvoirs royaux et par l'article 58, réservant aux fils du Roi ou à leur défaut, aux princes belges de la branche de la famille royale appelée & agrave; régner, la fonction de sénateur de droit à l'âge de dix-huit ans et avec voix délibérative à l'âge de vingt-cinq ans.

Article 15, alinéas 2 et 3

L'application de l'article 15, alinéas 2 et 3 n'affectera pas la validité des dispositions temporaires prévues en faveur des époux mariés avant l'entrée en vigueur de la loi du 14 juiliet 1976 concernant les droits et devoirs réciproques des conjoints et leur régimes matrimoniaux et qui auront, conformément à la faculté qui leur en est laissée en vertu de cette loi, fait une déclaration de maintien intégral de leur régime matrimonial antérieur.

Declaration:

The Federal Republic of Germany declares in respect of the paragraph of the Preamble to the Convention starting with the words ‘affirming that the strengthening of international peace and security’:

The right of peoples to self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and in the International Covenants of 19 December 1966, applies to all peoples and not only of those living ‘under alien and colonial domination and foreign occupation’. All peoples thus have the inalienable right freely to determine their political status and freely to pursue their economic, social and cultural development. The Federal Republic of Germany would be unable to recognize as legally valid an interpretation of the right of self-determination which contradicts the unequivocal wording of the Charter of the United Nations and of the two International Covenants of 19 December 1966 on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It will interpret the 11th paragraph of the Preamble accordingly.

Reservation:

Article 7(b) will not be applied to the extent that it contradicts the second sentence of Article 12 a (4) of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany. Pursuant to this provision of the Constitution, women may on no account render service involving the use of arms.

The Government of Argentina declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 29, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

The Argentine Republic recalls that the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands are an integral part of Argentine national territory and are illegally occupied by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, being the object of a dispute over sovereignty between that country and Argentina that is recognized by various international organizations.

The illegal occupation by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has led to the adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of the following resolutions: 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25, concerning the question of the Malvinas Islands, all of which recognize the existence of a dispute over sovereignty and urge the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume negotiations in order to find a just, peaceful and definitive solution to that dispute at the earliest possible opportunity.

Furthermore, the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization has repeatedly affirmed this position, most recently in the resolution that was adopted on 12 June 2008.

Reservations:

The Government of Sweden considers that the reservations regarding article 9, paragraph 2, article 15, paragraph 4 and article 16, paragraph 1 (c), (d), (f), (g) and (h) are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2) and therefore objects to them.

Indeed the reservations in question, if put into practice, would inevitably result in discrimination against women on the basis of sex, which is contrary to everything the Convention stands for. It should also be borne in mind that the principles of the equal rights of men and women and of non-discrimination on the basis of sex are set forth in the Charter of the United Nations as one of its purposes, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and in various multilateral instruments, to which Tunesia is a party.

[…]

In this context the Government of Sweden wishes to take this opportunity to make the observation that the reason why reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not acceptable is precisely that otherwise they would render a basic international obligation of a contractual nature meaningless. Incompatible reservations, made in respect of the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, do not only cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving states to the objects and purpose of this Convention, but moreover, contribute to undermine the basis of international contractual law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by other parties.

In respect of reservations and some declarations formulated by the Government of Tunisia concerning article 9, paragraph 2 and article 16, as well as the declaration concerning article 15, paragraph 4, the Federal Republic of Germany also holds the view that the reservation made by Tunisia regarding article 7 of the Convention is likewise incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention because for all matters which concern national security it reserves in a general and thus unspecific manner the right of the Tunisian Government to apply the provisions only within the limits established by national laws, regulations and practices.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservations made by Tunisia regarding article 9, paragraph 2, article 15, paragraph 4, and article 16, paragraph 1 (c), (d), (f), (g) and (h), are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2).

These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between Tunisia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Withdrawal of the declaration with regard to article 15(4) of the Convention and the reservations to articles 9(2), 16 (c), (d), (f), (g), (h) and 29(1) of the Convention made upon ratification.

Withdrawal of reservations made upon ratification.

During the preparatory stages of the present Convention and in the course of debates on it in the General Assembly the position of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands was that it was not desirable to introduce political considerations such as those contained in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the preamble in a legal instrument of this nature. Moreover, the considerations are not directly related to the achievement of total equality between men and women. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that it must recall its objections to the said paragraphs in the preamble at this occasion.

The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen declares that it does not consider itself bound by article 29, paragraph 1, of the said Convention, relating to the settlement of disputes which may arise concerning the application or interpretation of the Convention.

The Government of Mauritius does not consider itself bound by sub-paragraph (b) and (d) of paragraph 1 of article 11 and sub-paragraph (g) of paragraph 1 of article 16.

The Government of Mauritius does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 29 of the Convention, in pursuance of paragraph 2 of article 29.

The Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh does not consider as binding upon itself the provisions of articles 2, 13 (a) and 16.1 (c) and (f) as they conflict with Sharia law based on Holy Quran and Sunna.

The Government of the United Mexican States has studied the content of the reservations made by Bangladesh to article 2, […] of the Convention and has concluded that they should be considered invalid in the light of article 28, paragraph 2, of the Convention, because they are incompatible with its object and purpose.

Indeed, these reservations, if implemented, would inevitably result in discrimination against women on the basis of sex, which is contrary to all the articles of the Convention. The principles of equal rights of men and women and non-discrimination on the basis of sex, which are embodied in the second preambular paragraph and Article 1, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations, to which Bangladesh is a signatory, and in articles 2 and 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, were previously accepted by the Government of Bangladesh when it acceded, […] to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The above principles were stated in article 2, paragraph 1, and article 3 of the former Covenant and in article 2, paragraph 2, and article 3 of the latter. Consequently, it is inconsistent with these contractual obligations previously assumed by Bangladesh for its Government now to claim that it has reservations, on the same subject, about the 1979 Convention.

The Federal Republic of Germany considers that the reservations made by Bangladesh regarding article 2, […] are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2) and therefore objects to [them]. In relation to the Federal Republic of Germany, they may not be invoked in support of a legal practice which does not pay due regard to the legal status afforded to women and children in the Federal Republic of Germany in conformity with the above-mentioned articles of the Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between Bangladesh and the Federal Republic of Germany.

The Government of Sweden considers that the reservations regarding article 2, […] are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2) and therefore objects to them.

Indeed the reservations in question, if put into practice, would inevitably result in discrimination against women on the basis of sex, which is contrary to everything the Convention stands for. It should also be borne in mind that the principles of the equal rights of men and women and of non-discrimination on the basis of sex are set forth in the Charter of the United Nations as one of its purposes, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and in various multilateral instruments, to which Bangladesh is a party.

[…]

In this context the Government of Sweden wishes to take this opportunity to make the observation that the reason why reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not acceptable is precisely that otherwise they would render a basic international obligation of a contractual nature meaningless. Incompatible reservations, made in respect of the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, do not only cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving states to the objects and purpose of this Convention, but moreover, contribute to undermine the basis of international contractual law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by other parties.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservations made by Bangladesh regarding article 2, […] are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2).These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between Bangladesh and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

… The Government of the Republic of Cyprus wishes to enter a reservation concerning the granting to women of equal rights with men with respect to the nationality of their children, mentioned in article 9, paragraph 2, of the Convention. This reservation is to be withdrawn upon amendment of the relevant law.

De Regering van Cyprus heeft op 28-06-2000 het bij de toetreding gemaakte voorbehoud m.b.t. artikel 9, lid 2, van het Verdrag ingetrokken.

Declaration:

The Royal Thai Government wishes to express its understanding that the purposes of the Convention are to eliminate discrimination against women and to accord to every person, men and women alike, equality before the law, and are in accordance with the principles prescribed by the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand.

Reservations:

Withdrawal of the reservation to article 16 made upon accession.

The People’s Revolutionary Republic of Guinea wishes to sign the Convention [...] with the understanding that this procedure annuls the procedure of accession previously followed by Guinea with respect to the Convention.

Reservation:

Reservations of the Government of the Republic of Turkey with regard to the articles of the Convention dealing with family relations which are not completely compatible with the provisions of the Turkish Civil Code, in particular, article 15, paragraph 2 and 4, and article 16, paragraphs 1 (c), (d), (f) and (g), as well as with respect to article 29, paragraph 1.

In pursuance of article 29, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the Government of the Republic of Turkey declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of this article.

Declaration:

Article 9, paragraph 1 of the Convention is not in conflict with the provisions of article 5, paragraph 1, and article 15 and 17 of the Turkish Law on Nationality, relating to the acquisition of citizenship, since the intent of those provisions regulating acquisition of citizenship through marriage is to prevent statelessness.

Withdrawal of declaration in respect of Article 9 (1) made upon accession.

Articles 13(b) and (c)

The question of supplementing the guarantee of equality contained in the Irish Constitution which special legislation governing access to financial credit and other services and recreational activities, where these are provided by private persons, organisations or enterprises is under consideration. For the time being Ireland reserves the right to regard its existing law and measures in this area as appropriate for the attainment in Ireland of the objectives of the Convention.

Article 15

With regard to paragraph 3 of this article, Ireland reserves the right not to supplement the existing provisions in Irish law which accord women a legal capacity identical to that of men with further legislation governing the validity of any contract or other private instrument freely entered into by a woman.

Articles 16, 1(d) and (f)

Ireland is of the view that the attainment in Ireland of the objectives of the Convention does not necessitate the extension to men of rights identical to those accorded by law to women in respect of the guardianship, adoption and custody of children born out of wedlock and reserves the right to implement the Convention subject to that understanding.

Articles 11(1) and 13(a)

Ireland reserves the right to regard the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 and the Employment Equality Act 1977 and other measures taken in implementation of the European Economic Community standards concerning employment opportunities and pay as sufficient implementation of articles 11,1(b), (c) and (d).

Ireland reserves the right for the time being to maintain provisions of Irish legislation in the area of social security which are more favourable to women than men.

Article 9(1)

Pending the proposed amendment to the law relating to citizenship, which is at an advanced stage, Ireland reserves the right to retain the provisions in its existing law concerning the acquisition of citizenship on marriage.

Article 15

With regard to paragraph 4 of this article, Ireland observes the equal rights of women relating to the movement of persons and the freedom to choose their residence; pending the proposed amendment of the law of domicile, which is at an advanced stage, it reserves the right to retain its existing law.

Article 11(1) and 13(a)

… and pending the coming into force of the Social Welfare (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1985, to apply special conditions to the entitlement of married women to certain social security schemes.’

The Government of Ireland notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation to articles 13(b) and (c) made upon accession which reads as follows:

The question of supplementing the guarantee of equality contained in the Irish Constitution which special legislation governing access to financial credit and other services and recreational activities, where these are provided by private persons, organisations or enterprises is under consideration. For the time being Ireland reserves the right to regard its existing law and measures in this area as appropriate for the attainment in Ireland of the objectives of the Convention.

The Government of the United Mexican States has studied the content of the reservations made by Iraq to article 2, paragraphs (f) and (g), article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2 and article 16, of the Convention and has concluded that they should be considered invalid in the light of article 28, paragraph 2, of the Convention, because they are incompatible with its object and purpose.

Indeed, these reservations, if implemented, would inevitably result in discrimination against women on the basis of sex, which is contrary to all the articles of the Convention. The principles of equal rights of men and women and non-discrimination on the basis of sex, which are embodied in the second preambular paragraph and Article 1, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations, to which Iraq is a signatory, and in articles 2 and 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, were previously accepted by the Government of Iraq when it ratified, […] the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The above principles were stated in article 2, paragraph 1, and article 3 of the former Covenant and in article 2, paragraph 2, and article 3 of the latter. Consequently, it is inconsistent with these contractual obligations previously assumed by Iraq for its Government now to claim that it has reservations, on the same subject, about the 1979 Convention.

The objection of the Government of the United Mexican States to the reservations in question should not be interpreted as an impediment to the entry into force of the 1979 Convention between the United Mexican States and Iraq.

The Government of Sweden considers that the reservations regarding article 2, paragraph (f) and (g), article 9, paragraph 1, and article 16 are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2) and therefore objects to them.

In this context the Government of Sweden wishes to take this opportunity to make the observation that the reason why reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not acceptable is precisely that otherwise they would render a basic international obligation of a contractual nature meaningless. Incompatible reservations, made in respect of the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, do not only cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving states to the objects and purpose of this Convention, but moreover, contribute to undermine the basis of international contractual law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by other parties.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservations made by Iraq regarding article 2, sub-paragraphs (f) and (g), article 9 and article 16, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2).

These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between Iraq and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Owing to the deep-rooted nature of some traditional customs and practices of Malawians, the Government of the Republic of Malawi shall not, for the time being, consider itself bound by such of the provisions of the Convention as require immediate eradication of such traditional customs and practices.

‘While the Government of the Republic of Malawi accepts the principles of article 29 paragraph 2, of the Convention this acceptance should nonetheless be read in conjunction with [its] declaration of 12th December 1966, concerning the recognition, by the Government of the Republic of Malawi, as compulsory the jurisdiction of the International Justice under article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court.

The Government of the United Mexican States hopes that the process of eradication of traditional customs and practices referred to in the first reservation of the Republic of Malawi will not be so protracted as to impair fulfilment of the purpose and intent of the Convention.

… is subject to the general reservation that such accession can not conflict with the laws on personal status derived from the Islamic Shariah.

The Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has declared its accession to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 18 December 1979, with the following reservation:

With regard to the reservation made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya upon accession (see also objection made on 16 October 1996, hereinafter, with regard to the reservation made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya upon accession, as modified on 5 July 1995):

The Government of Finland has examined the contents of the reservation made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and considers the said reservation as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of Finland therefore enters its objection to this reservation.

This objection is not an obstacle to the entry intor force of the said Convention between Finland and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

In respect of the reservation made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the Federal Republic of Germany also holds the view that the reservation made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya regarding article 7 of the Convention is likewise incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention because for all matters which concern national security it reserves in a general and thus unspecific manner the right of the Government of Libya to apply the provisions only within the limits established by national laws, regulations and practices.

The Government of Denmark has taken note of the reservation made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya when acceding [to the said Convention]. In the view of the Government of Denmark this reservation is subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty.

The Government of Norway has examined the contents of the reservation made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, by which the accession ‘is subject to the general reservation that such accession cannot conflict with the laws on personal status derived from the Islamic Shariah’. The Norwegian Government has come to the conclusion that this reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2). The Government of Norway objects to the reservation.

The Norwegian Government will stress that by acceding to the Convention, a state commits itself to adopt the measures required for the elimination of discrimination, in all its forms and manifestations, against women. A reservation by which a State Party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking religious law (Shariah), which is subject to interpretation, modification, and selective application in different states adhering to Islamic principles, may create doubts about the commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention. It may also undermine the basis of international treaty law. All states have common interest in securing that all partie s respect treaties to which they have chosen to become parties.

The Government of the United Mexican States has studied the content of the reservations made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the Convention and has concluded that they should be considered invalid in the light of article 28, paragraph 2, of the Convention, because they are incompatible with its object and purpose.

Indeed, these reservations, if implemented, would inevitably result in discrimination against women on the basis of sex, which is contrary to all the articles of the Convention. The principles of equal rights of men and women and non-discrimination on the basis of sex, which are embodied in the second preambular paragraph and Article 1, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations, to which Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is a signatory, and in articles 2 and 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, were previously accepted by the Government of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya when it acceded […] to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The above principles were stated in article 2, paragraph 1, and article 3 of the former Covenant and in article 2, paragraph 2, and article 3 of the latter. Consequently, it is inconsistent with these contractual obligations previously assumed by Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its Government now to claim that it has reservations, on the same subject, about the 1979 Convention.

The objection of the Government of the United Mexican States to the reservations in question should not be interpreted as an impediment to the entry into force of the 1979 Convention between the United Mexican States and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservations made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya upon accession, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2).

These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

A reservation which consists of a general reference to religious law without specifying its contents does not clearly define to the other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore may cast doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Such a reservation is also, in the view of the Government of Finland, subject to the general principle of the observance of treaties according to which a Party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty.

The Federal Republic of Germany considers that the reservations made by Egypt regarding article 2, article 9, paragraph 2, and article 16, by Bangladesh regarding article 2, article 13(a) and article 16, paragraph 1(c), and (f), by Brazil regarding article 15, paragraph 4, and article 16, paragraph 1(a), (c), (g) and (h), by Jamaica regarding article 9, paragraph 2, by the Republic of Korea regarding article 9 and article 16, paragraph 1(c), (d), (f) and (g), and by Mauritius regarding article 11, paragraph 1(b) and (d), and article 16, paragraph 1(g), are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2) and therefore objects to them. In relation to the Federal Republic of Germany, they may not be invoked in support of a legal practice which does not due regard to the legal status afforded to women and children in the Federal Republic of Germany in conformity with the above-mentioned article of the Convention.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between Egypt, Bangladesh, Brazil, Jamaica, the Republic of Korea, Mauritius and the Federal Republic of Germany.

Objections, identical in essence, mutatis mutandis, were also formulated by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany in regarding reservations made by various states, as follows:

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservations made by Bangladesh regarding article 2, article 13(a) and article 16, paragraph 1(c) and (f), by Egypt regarding article 2, article 9 and article 16, by Brazil regarding article 15, paragraph 4, and article 16, paragraph 1(a), (c), (g) and (h), by Iraq regarding article 2, paragraphs (f) and (g), article 9 and article 16, by Mauritius regarding article 11, paragraph 1(b) and (d), and article 16, paragraph 1(g), by Jamaica regarding article 9, paragraph 2, by the Republic of Korea regarding article 9 and article 16, paragraph 1(c), (d), (f) and (g), by Thailand regarding article 9, paragraph 2, article 15, paragraph 3 and article 16, by Tunisia regarding article 9, paragraph 2, article 15, paragraph 4, and article 16, paragraph 1(c), (d), (f), (g) and (h), by Turkey regarding article 15, paragraphs 2 and 4, and article 16, paragraph 1(c), (d), (f) and (g), are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2).

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the contents of the reservation made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, by which the accession ‘is made subject to the general reservation that such accession cannot conflict with the laws on personal status derived from the Islamic Shariah’, and considers the said reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has also examined the reservations made by the Republic of Malawi, by which ‘owing to the deep-rooted nature of some traditional customs and practices of Malawians, the Government of the Republic of Malawi shall not, for the time being, consider itself bound by such provisions of the Convention as require immediate eradication of such traditional customs and practices’, and considers the said reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the abovementioned reservations.

These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between Bangladesh, Egypt, Brazil, Iraq, Mauritius, Jamaica, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malawi and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the declarations made by India regarding Article 5(a) and Article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention are reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (Article 28, paragraph 2).

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the declaration made by India regarding Article 16, paragraph 2, of the Convention is a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (Article 28, paragraph 2).

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the declaration made by Morocco expressing the readiness of Morocco to apply the provisions of Article 2 provided that they do not conflict with the provisions of the Islamic Shariah, is a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (Article 28, paragraph 2).

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the declaration made by Morocco regarding Article 15, paragraph 4, of the Convention is a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (Article 28, paragraph 2).

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservations made by Morocco regarding Article 9, paragraph 2, and Article 16 of the Convention are reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (Article 28, paragraph 2).

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations made by the Maldives, … The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the said reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the abovementioned declarations and reservations. ’

The Government of the United Mexican States has studied the content of the reservations made by Mauritius to article 11, paragraph 1(b) and (d), and article 16, paragraph 1(g), of the Convention and has concluded that they should be considered invalid in the light of article 28, paragraph 2, of the Convention, because they are incompatible with its object and purpose.

Indeed, these reservations, if implemented, would inevitably result in discrimination against women on the basis of sex, which is contrary to all the articles of the Convention. The principles of equal rights of men and women and non-discrimination on the basis of sex, which are embodied in the second preambular paragraph and Article 1, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations, to which Mauritius is a signatory, and in articles 2 and 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, were previously accepted by the Government of Mauritius when it acceded, on 12 December 1973, to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The above principles were stated in article 2, paragraph 1, and article 3 of the former Covenant and in article 2, paragraph 2, and article 3 of the latter. Consequently, it is inconsistent with these contractual obligations previously assumed by Mauritius for its Government now to claim that it has reservations, on the same subject, about the 1979 Convention.

The objection of the Government of the United Mexican States to the reservations in question should not be interpreted as an impediment to the entry into force of the 1979 Convention between the United Mexican States and Mauritius.

Objections 14, identical in essence, mutatis mutandis, were also formulated by the Government of Mexico in regard to reservations made by various States, as follows [for the States which were not Parties to the Covenants (marked below with an asterisk *), the participation in the Covenants was not invoked by Mexico in its objection with regard to reservation]:

The Government of Sweden considers that [the following reservations] are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2) and therefore objects to them:

Indeed the reservations in question, if put into practice, would inevitably result in discrimination against women on the basis of sex, which is contrary to everything the Convention stands for. It should also be borne in mind that the principles of the equal rights of men and women and of non-discrimination on the basis of sex are set forth in the Charter of the United Nations as one of its purposes, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and in various multilateral instruments, to which Thailand, Tunisia and Bangladesh are parties.

The Government of Sweden furthermore notes that, as a matter of principle, the same objection could be made to the reservations made by:

In this context the Government of Sweden wishes to take this opportunity to make the observation that the reason why reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not acceptable is precisely that otherwise they would render a basic international obligation of a contractual nature meaningless. Incompatible reservations, made in respect of the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, do not only cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving states to the objects and purpose of this Convention, but moreover, contribute to undermine the basis of international contractual law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose by other parties.’

Subsequently, the Secretary-General received, from the Government of Sweden, objections of the same nature as the one above with regard to reservations made by the following states on the dates indicated hereinafter:

12 March 1987 with regard to the reservation made by Iraq in respect of article 2, paragraph (f) and (g), article 9, paragraph 1, and article 16;

15 April 1988 with regard to the first reservation made by Malawi;

25 May 1990 with regard to the reservation made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. ’

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan … does no[t] consider itself bound by the provisions of article 9, paragraph 2, article 15, paragraph 4 (a woman's residence and domicile are with her husband), the wording of article 16(c) (in relation to the rights arising upon the dissolution of a marriage in connexion with maintenance and compensation), and article 16(d) and (g) of the Convention.

The Government of Sweden has examined the content of the reservations made by Jordan, … and has come to the conclusion that they are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2). The Government of Sweden therefore objects to them.

In this context the Government of Sweden wishes to take this opportunity to make the observation that the reason why reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not acceptable is precisely that otherwise they would render a basic international obligation of a contractual nature meaningless. Incompatible reservations, made in respect of the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, do not only cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving states to the objects and purpose of this Convention, but moreover, contribute to undermine the basis of international contractual law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by other parties.

Withdrawal of reservation with regard to article 15 (4).

In signing ad referendum the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which the General Assembly opened for signature by States on 18 December 1979, the Government of the United Mexican States wishes to place on record that it is doing so on the understanding that the provisions of the said Convention, which agree in all essentials with the provisions of Mexican legislation, will be applied in Mexico in accordance with the modalities and procedures prescribed by Mexican legislation and that the granting of material benefits in pursuance of the Convention will be as generous as the resources available to the Mexican State permit.

Reservation:

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the declaration made by Morocco expressing the readiness of Morocco to apply the provisions of article 2 provided that they do not conflict with the provisions of the Islamic Shariah, is a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2).

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the declaration made by Morocco regarding article 15, paragraph 4, of the Convention is a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2).

[…]

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the above-mentioned declarations and reservations.

These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between Morocco and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

The Kingdom of Morocco withdraws its reservations in respect of articles 9 (2) and 16 of the Convention.

The Government of the Republic of Maldives will comply with the provisions of the Convention, except those which the Government may consider contradictory to the principles of the Islamic Sharia upon which the laws and traditions of the Maldives is founded.

Furthermore, the Republic of Maldives does not see itself bound by any provisions of the Convention which obliged to change its Constitution and laws in any manner.

The Government of Finland has examined the contents of the reservations made by the Government of Maldivses[lees: Maldives] upon accession to the said Convention…

In the view of the Government of Finland, the unlimited and undefined character of the said reservations create serious doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. In their extensive formulation, they are clearly contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention. Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to such reservations.

The Government of Finland also recalls that the said reservations are subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as a justification for failure to perform its treat obligations.

The Government of Finland does not, however, consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Finland and Maldives.

The Federal Government of Germany has examined the contents of the reservations made by the Government of Maldives upon accession to the said Convention, by which Maldives expresses that 'the Government of the Republic of Maldives will comply with the provisions of the Convention, except those which the Government may consider contradictory to the principles of the Islamic Sharia upon which the laws and traditions of the Maldives is founded. Furthermore, the Republic of Maldives does not see itself bound by any provisions of the Convention which obliged to change its constitution and laws in any manner.’

In the view of the Federal Government of Germany, the unlimited and undefined character of the said reservations create serious doubts about the commitment of the reserving state to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. In their extensive formulation, they are clearly contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention. Therefore, the Federal Government of Germany objects to such reservations.

The Federal Government of Germany also recalls that the said reservations are subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as a justification for failure to perform its treaty obligations.

The Federal Government of Germany does not, however, consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Germany and Maldives.

The Government of Canada has taken note of the reservation made by the Republic of Maldives. In the view of the Government of Canada, this reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2). The Government of Canada therefore enters its formal objection to this reservation. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between Canada and the Republic of Maldives.

The Government of Norway has examined the content of the reservation made by Maldives upon ratification, which reads as follows: ‘The Government of the Republic of Maldives will comply with the provisions of the Convention, except those which the Government may consider contradictory to the principles of the Islamic Sharia upon which the laws and traditions of the Maldives is founded. Furthermore, the Republic of Maldives does not see itself bound by any provisions of the Convention which obliged to change its Constitution and laws in any manner.

In the view of the Government of Norway, a reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of internal law may create doubts about the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermine the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties. Furthermore, under well established international treaty law, a State is not permitted to invoke internal law as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to Maldives reservations.

The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the above-stated Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Maldives.

The Government of Austria has examined the contents of the reservation made by the Government of Maldives upon accession to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, by which the Maldives express that ‘The Government of the Republic of Maldives will comply with the provisions of the Convention, except those which the Government may consider contradictory to the principles of the Islamic Sharia upon which the laws and traditions of the Maldives is founded. Furthermore, the Republic of Maldives does not see itself bound by any provisions of the Convention which obliged to change its Constitution and laws in any manner.

The reservation made by the Maldives is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and is therefore inadmissible under Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and shall not be permitted, in accordance with Article 28 (2) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Austria therefore states that this reservation cannot alter or modify in any respect the obligations arising from the Convention for any State Party thereto.

… The Government of Portugal considers that the reservations formulated by the Maldives are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and that they are inadmissible under Article 19 (C) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Furthermore, the Government of Portugal considers that these reservations cannot alter or modify in any respect the obligations arising from the Convention for any State party thereto.

The Government of Sweden has examined the contents of the reservations made by the Government of the Republic of the Maldives upon accession to the said Convention by which it declares:

The Government of the Republic of the Maldives will comply with the provisions of the Convention, except those which the Government may consider contradictory to the principles of the Islamic Sharia upon which the laws and traditions of the Maldives is founded.

Furthermore, the Republic of the Maldives does not see itself bound by any provisions of the Convention which obliges it to change its constitution and laws in any manner.

In order to be compatible with the object and purpose of a treaty, a reservation is expected to satisfy some implied criteria of specificity. In the view of the Government of Sweden the reservations, made by the Republic of the Maldives, are of an unlimited and undefined character. Their sweeping and general formulation, which applies to all articles of the Convention including the general obligations of States parties set forth in Articles 2, 3 and 24, casts serious doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention.

Said reservations are subject to the general principles of treaty law, which entail that a party may not invoke its internal law as a justification for not performing its treaty obligations.

In this context the Government of Sweden wishes to make the observation that incompatible reservations do not only cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving States tot the object and purpose of this Convention but, moreover, contributes to undermine the basis of international law. It is the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by other parties and that states are prepared to undertake the legislative changes necessary to comply with such treaties.

The Government of Sweden therefore considers the reservations made by the Republic of the Maldives, as at present formulated, and where it is stated that the Maldives does not ‘see itself bound by any provisions of the Convention which obliged to change its Constitution and laws in any manner’, a provision aimed at exempting the Republic of the Maldives from the responsibility to undertake legislative measures in order to comply with obligations under the Convention if so required, to be incompatible with and contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of Sweden therefore objects to these reservations and considers that they constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and the Republic of the Maldives.

The Government of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas does not con-sider itself bound by the provisions of article 2 (a) of the Convention.

The Government of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas does not con-sider itself bound by the provisions of article 9, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

The Government of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas does not con-sider itself bound by the provisions of article 29, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Withdrawal of the reservation to article 16 (1) h) of the Convention. The remaining reservation will now read as follows:

The Government of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 2 (a) of the Convention.

The Government of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 9, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

The Government of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 29, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

In the view of the Government of Norway, a reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of internal law may create doubts about the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermine the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties. Furthermore, under well established international treaty law, a State is not permitted to invoke internal law as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to Kuwaits reservations.

The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the above-stated Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and Kuwait.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservations made by Kuwait regarding Article 7(a), Article 9, paragraph 2 and Article 16(f) are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (Article 28, paragraph 2).

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the abovementioned reservations. These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Kuwait and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

The Government of Finland recalls that by acceding to the Convention, a State commits itself to adopt the measures required for the elimination of discrimination, in all its forms and manifestations, against women.

[...]

Reservations to [...] and article 9 paragraph 2 are both subject to the general principle of the observance of treaties according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of States that contracting parties to international treaties are prepared to undertake the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfill the object and purpose of the treaty.

Furthermore, in the view of the Government of Finland, the unlimited and undefined character of the reservation to article 16 (f) leaves open to what extent the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore creates serious doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. Reservations of such unspecified nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.

In their present formulation the reservations are clearly incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore inadmissible under article 28 paragraph 2, of the said Convention. Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to these reservations. The Government of Finland further notes that the reservations made by the Government of Kuwait are devoid of legal effect.

The Government of Finland recommends the Government of Kuwait to reconsider its reservations to the [said] Convention.

The Government of Sweden considers that the reservations made by Kuwait upon accession are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2) and therefore objects to them.

Indeed the reservations in question, if put into practice, would inevitably result in discrimination against women on the basis of sex, which is contrary to everything the Convention stands for. It should also be borne in mind that the principles of the equal rights of men and women and of non-discrimination on the basis of sex are set forth in the Charter of the United Nations as one of its purposes, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and in various multilateral instruments, to which Kuwait is a party.

[...]

In this context the Government of Sweden wishes to take this opportunity to make the observation that the reason why reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not acceptable is precisely that otherwise they would render a basic international obligation of a contractual nature meaningless. Incompatible reservations, made in respect of the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, do not only cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving states to the objects and purpose of this Convention, but moreover, contribute to undermine the basis of international contractual law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by other parties.

The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium notified the Secretary-General that it considers the reservations made by the Government of Kuwait concerning [...] and article 16 (f) as ‘incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention and, therefore, as prohibited by virtue of its article 28 paragraph 2’.

The Government of Portugal notified the Secretary-General that it considers the reservations made by the Government of Kuwait concerning [...] and article 16 (f) as ‘incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention and, therefore, as prohibited by virtue of its article 28 paragraph 2’.

The Government of Denmark finds that the said reservations are covering central provisions of the Convention. Furthermore it is a general principle of international law that internal law may not be invoked as justification for failure to perform treaty obligations. The Government of Denmark finds that the reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law. Consequently, the Government of Denmark objects to these reservations.

It is the opinion of the Government of Denmark that no time limit applies to objections against reservations, which are inadmissible under international law.

The Convention remains in force in its entirety between Kuwait and Denmark.

The Government of Denmark recommends the Government of Kuwait to reconsider its reservations to the [said] Convention

The Government of the Kingdom of Lesotho declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 2 to the extent that it conflicts with Lesotho's constitutional stipulations relative to succession to the throne of the Kingdom of Lesotho and law relating to succession to chieftainship. The Lesotho Government's ratification is subject to the understanding that none of its obligations under the Convention especially in Article 2(e), shall be treated as extending to the affairs of religious denominations.

Furthermore, the Lesotho Government declares it shall not take any legislative measures under the Convention where those measures would be incompatible with the Constitution of Lesotho.

In the view of the Government of Norway, a reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of internal law may create doubts about the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermine the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties. Furthermore, under well established international treaty law, a State is not permitted to invoke internal law as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the reservations of Lesotho.

The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the above-stated Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and Lesotho.

The reservations made by Lesotho, consisting of a general reference to religious and national law without specifying the contents thereof and without stating unequivocally the provisions the legal effect of which may be excluded or modified, do not clearly define to the other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore creates serious doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfill its obligations under the Convention. Reservations of such unspecified nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.

The Government of Finland also recalls that the reservations of Lesotho are subject to the general principles of observance of treaties according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of States that Parties to international treaties are prepared to take the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfil the object and purpose of the treaty.

Furthermore, the reservations made by Lesotho, in particular to articles 2 (f) and 5 (a), are two fundamental provisions of the Convention the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling its object and purpose.

The Government of Finland considers that in their present formulation the reservations made by Lesotho are clearly incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention and therefore inadmissible under article 28, paragraph 2, of the said Convention. In view of the above, the Government of Finland objects to these reservations and notes that they are devoid of legal effect.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers [...] that such reservations, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking the general principles of national law and the Constitution, may raise doubts as to the commitment of this State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands further considers that the reservations made by Lesotho regarding article 2 (f), article 5 (a), article 9 and article 16 of the Convention are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Lesotho.

The Government of Denmark finds that the said reservations are covering central provisions of the Convention. Furthermore it is a general principle of international law that internal law may not be invoked as justification for failure to perform treaty obligations. The Government of Denmark finds that the reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law. Consequently, the Government of Denmark objects to these reservations.

It is the opinion of the Government of Denmark that no time limit applies to objections against reservations, which are inadmissible under international law.

The Convention remains in force in its entirety between Lesotho and Denmark.

The Government of Denmark recommends the Government of Lesotho to reconsider its reservations to the [said] Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of Lesotho declares that it does not consider itself bound by article 2 to the extent that it conflicts with Lesotho's constitutional stipulations relative to succession to the throne of the Kingdom of Lesotho and law relating to succession to chieftainship.

The Government of Malaysia declares that Malaysia's accession is subject to the understanding that the provisions of the Convention do not conflict with the provisions of the Islamic Sharia' law and the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. With regards thereto, further, the Government of Malaysia does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Articles 2f), 5a), 7b), 9 and 16 of the aforesaid Convention.

In relation to Article 11, Malaysia interprets the provisions of this Article as a reference to the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of equality between men and women only.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers […] that such reservations, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking the general principles of national law and the Constitution, may raise doubts as to the commitment of this State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands further considers that the reservations made by Malaysia regarding […], article 9 and article 16 of the Convention are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Malaysia.

The reservations made by Malaysia, consisting of a general reference to religious and national law without specifying the contents thereof and without stating unequivocally the provisions the legal effect of which may be excluded or modified, do not clearly define to the other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore creates serious doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfill its obligations under the Convention. Reservations of such unspecified nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.

The Government of Finland also recalls that the reservations of Malaysia are subject to the general principles of observance of treaties according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of States that Parties to international treaties are prepared to take the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfil the object and purpose of the treaty.[…]The Government of Finland considers that in their present formulation the reservations made by Malaysia are clearly incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention and therefore inadmissible under article 28, paragraph 2, of the said Convention. In view of the above, the Government of Finland objects to these reservations and notes that they are devoid of legal effect.

In the view of the Government of Norway, a statement by which a State Party purports to limit its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of internal or religious law may create doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. Under well-established international treaty law, a State is not permitted to invoke internal law as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. Furthermore, the Government of Norway considers that reservation made by the Government of Malaysia with respect to certain specific provisions of the Convention is so extensive as to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, and thus not permitted under article 28, paragraph 2, of the Convention. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the reservations made by the Government of Malaysia.

The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and Malaysia.

The Government of Sweden considers that the reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2) and therefore objects to them.

The Government of Denmark finds that the said reservations are covering central provisions of the Convention. Furthermore it is a general principle of international law that internal law may not be invoked as justification for failure to perform treaty obligations. The Government of Denmark finds that the reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law. Consequently, the Government of Denmark objects to these reservations.

It is the opinion of the Government of Denmark that no time limit applies to objections against reservations, which are inadmissible under international law.

The Convention remains in force in its entirety between Malaysia and Denmark.

The Government of Denmark recommends the Government of Malaysia to reconsider its reservations to the [said] Convention.

France considers that the reservation made by Malaysia, as expressed in the partial withdrawal and modifications made by Malaysia on 6 February 1998, is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. France therefore object to the [reservation].

This objection shall nog otherwise affect the entry into force of the Convention between France and Malaysia.

Consequently, the modification in question is not accepted, the Government of France having objected thereto.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers […] that such reservations, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking the general principles of national law and the Constitution, may raise doubts as to the commitment of this State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands further considers that the reservations made by Malaysia regarding […], article 9 and article 16 of the Convention are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Malaysia.

The Government of Austria has examined the modification of the reservations made by Malaysia to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women as notified on 19 July 2010.

In the view of Austria a reservation should clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention. A reservation which consists of a general reference to constitutional provisions and Islamic Sharia law without specifying its implications does not do so. The Government of Austria therefore objects to this general reservation.

The Government of Austria further finds that the reservations to articles 9 (2), 16 (1) a, 16 (1) f and 16 (1) g, if put into practice, would inevitably result in discrimination against women on the basis of sex. This is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of Austria therefore objects to these reservations.

This position, however, does not affect the application of the Convention in its entirety between Austria and Malaysia.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands […] considers:

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservations.

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

The reservations made by Singapore, consisting of a general reference to religious and national law without specifying the contents thereof and without stating unequivocally the provisions the legal effect of which may be excluded or modified, do not clearly define to the other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore creates serious doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfill its obligations under the Convention. Reservations of such unspecified nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.

The Government of Finland also recalls that the reservations of Singapore are subject to the general principles of observance of treaties according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of States that Parties to international treaties are prepared to take the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfil the object and purpose of the treaty.

Furthermore, the reservations made by Singapore, in particular to articles 2 (f) and 5 (a), are two fundamental provisions of the Convention the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling its object and purpose.

The Government of Finland considers that in their present formulation the reservations made by Singapore are clearly incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention and therefore inadmissible under article 28, paragraph 2, of the said Convention. In view of the above, the Government of Finland objects to these reservations and notes that they are devoid of legal effect.

In the view of the Government of Norway, a reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of internal law may create doubts about the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermine the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties. Furthermore, under well established international treaty law, a State is not permitted to invoke internal law as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the reservations of Singapore.

The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the above-stated Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and Singapore.

The Government of Denmark finds that the said reservations are covering central provisions of the Convention. Furthermore it is a general principle of international law that internal law may not be invoked as justification for failure to perform treaty obligations. The Government of Denmark finds that the reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law. Consequently, the Government of Denmark objects to these reservations.

It is the opinion of the Government of Denmark that no time limit applies to objections against reservations, which are inadmissible under international law.

The Convention remains in force in its entirety between Singapore and Denmark.

The Government of Denmark recommends the Government of Singapore to reconsider its reservations to the [said] Convention.

The Government of Sweden is of the view that these general reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Singapore to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to article 28, paragraph 2, of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that states are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Sweden is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by the Government of Singapore, which do not clearly specify the provisions of the Convention to which they apply and the extent of the derogation therefrom, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law.

The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid general reservations made by the Government of Singapore to the [said Convention].

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Singapore and Sweden. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without Singapore benefiting from these reservations.

It is the opinion of the Government of Sweden, that no time limit applies to objections against reservations, which are inadmissible under international law.

The Government of Singapore notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the following reservation made upon accession:’(2) Singapore is geographically one of the smallest independent countries in the world and one of the most densely populated. The Republic of Singapore accordingly reserves the right to apply such laws and conditions governing the entry into, stay in, employment of and departure from its territory of those who do not have the right under the laws of Singapore to enter and remain indefinitely in Singapore and to the conferment, acquisitions and loss of citizenship of women who have acquired such citizenship by marriage and of children born outside Singapore.’

Upon accession to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Government of the Republic of Singapore made a reservation reserving the right not to apply the provisions of articles 2 and 16 where compliance with these provisions would be contrary to religious or personal laws of the minorities in the Republic of Singapore […].

The Government of the Republic of Singapore, having reviewed the said reservation hereby modifies the same as follows:

(1) In the context of Singapore's multiracial and multi-religious society and the need to respect the freedom of minorities to practice their religious and personal laws, the Republic of Singapore reserves the right not to apply the provisions of article 2, paragraphs (a) to (f), and article 16, paragraphs 1(a), 1(c), 1(h), and article 16, paragraph 2, where compliance with these provisions would be contrary to their religious or personal laws.

Modification of reservation to Article 11: (3) Singapore considers that legislation in respect of article 11 is unnecessary for the minority of women who do not fall within the ambit of Singapore’s employment legislation.

Reservation concerning Article 1:

In the light of the definition given in Article 1 of the Convention, the Principality of Liechtenstein reserves the right to apply, with respect to all the obligations of the Convention, Article 3 of the Liechtenstein Constitution.

Reservation concerning Article 9 (2):

The Principality of Liechtenstein reserves the right to apply the Liechtenstein legislation according to which Liechtenstein nationality is granted under certain conditions.

Declaration:

The accession by [the] Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the [said Convention] is subject to the provisions of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Reservation:

The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 29 of the Convention.

In respect of the declaration made by Pakistan, the Federal Republic of Germany also holds the view that the reservation made by Pakistan regarding article 7 of the Convention is likewise incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention because for all matters which concern national security it reserves in a general and thus unspecific manner the right of the Government of Pakistan to apply the provisions only within the limits established by national laws, regulations and practices.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers … that such reservations, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking the general principles of national law and the Constitution, may raise doubts as to the commitment of this State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands further considers that the reservations made by Pakistan regarding article 2 (f), article 5 (a), article 9 and article 16 of the Convention are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Pakistan.

Austria is of the view that a reservation by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention in a general and unspecified manner by invoking internal law creates doubts as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with its obligations under the Convention, essential for the fulfillment of its object and purpose.

It is in the common interests 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.

Austria is further of the view that a general reservation of the kind made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which does not clearly specify the provisions of the Convention to which it applies and the extent of the derogation therefrom, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. Given the general character of this reservation a final assessment as to its admissibility under international law cannot be made without further clarification.

According to international law a reservation is inadmissible to the extent as its application negatively affects the compliance by a State with its obligations under the Convention essential for the fulfillment of its object and purpose.

Therefore, Austria cannot consider the reservation made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as admissible unless the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, by providing additional information or through subsequent practice, ensures that the reservation is compatible with the provisions essential for the implementation of the object and purpose of the Convention.

This view by Austria would not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Convention between Pakistan and Austria.

The reservations made by Pakistan, consisting of a general reference to religious and national law without specifying the contents thereof and without stating unequivocally the provisions the legal effect of which may be excluded or modified, do not clearly define to the other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore creates serious doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfill its obligations under the Convention. Reservations of such unspecified nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.

The Government of Finland also recalls that the reservations of Pakistan are subject to the general principles of observance of treaties according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of States that Parties to international treaties are prepared to take the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfil the object and purpose of the treaty.

Furthermore, the reservations made by Pakistan, in particular to articles 2 (f) and 5 (a), are two fundamental provisions of the Convention the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling its object and purpose. The Government of Finland considers that in their present formulation the reservations made by Pakistan are clearly incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention and therefore inadmissible under article 28, paragraph 2, of the said Convention. In view of the above, the Government of Finland objects to these reservations and notes that they are devoid of legal effect.

In the view of the Government of Norway, a reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of internal law may create doubts about the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermine the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties. Furthermore, under well established international treaty law, a State is not permitted to invoke internal law as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the reservations of Pakistan.

The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the above-stated Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and Pakistan.

Portugal is of the view that a general declaration of the kind made by Pakistan, constituting in fact in legal terms a general reservation, and not clearly specifying the provisions of the Convention to which it applies and the extent of the derogation therefrom, contributes to undermining the basis of international law.

Furthermore, according to paragraph 2 of article 28 of the Convention, a general reservation of such a kind is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and shall not be permitted.

Portugal therefore objects to the aforesaid general reservation which will not preclude the entry into force of the Convention in its entirety between Pakistan and Portugal.

The Government of Sweden is of the view that these general reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to article 28, paragraph 2, of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that states are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Sweden is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by the Government of Pakistan, which do not clearly specify the provisions of the Convention to which they apply and the extent of the derogation therefrom, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law.

The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid general reservations made by the Government of Pakistan to the [said Convention].

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Pakistan and Sweden. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without Pakistan benefiting from these reservations.

It is the opinion of the Government of Sweden, that no time limit applies to objections against reservations, which are inadmissible under international law.

The Government of Denmark finds that the said reservations are covering central provisions of the Convention. Furthermore it is a general principle of international law that internal law may not be invoked as justification for failure to perform treaty obligations. The Government of Denmark finds that the reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law. Consequently, the Government of Denmark objects to these reservations.

It is the opinion of the Government of Denmark that no time limit applies to objections against reservations, which are inadmissible under international law.

The Convention remains in force in its entirety between Pakistan and Denmark.

The Government of Denmark recommends the Government of Pakistan to reconsider its reservations to the [said] Convention.

Article 2: The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria declares that it is prepared to apply the provisions of this article on condition that they do not conflict with the provisions of the Algerian Family Code.

Article 9, paragraph 2: The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria wishes to express its reservations concerning the provisions of article 9, paragraph 2, which are incompatible with the provisions of the Algerian Nationality code and the Algerian Family Code.

The Algerian Nationality code allows a child to take the nationality of the mother only when:

Article 41 of the Algerian Family Code states that a child is affiliated to its father through legal marriage.

Article 43 of that Code states that ‘the child is affiliated to its father if it is born in the 10 months following the date of separation or death’.

Article 15, paragraph 4: The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria declares that the provisions of article 15, paragraph 4, concerning the right of women to choose their residence and domicile should not be interpreted in such a manner as to contradict the provisions of chapter 4 (art. 37) of the Algerian Family Code.

Article 16: The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria declares that the provisions of article 16 concerning equal rights for men and women in all matters relating to marriage, both during marriage and at its dissolution, should not contradict the provisions of the Algerian Family Code.

Article 29: The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria does not consider itself bound by article 29, paragraph 1, which states that any dispute between two or more Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention which is not settled by negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.

The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria holds that no such dispute can be submitted to arbitration or to the Court of International Justice except with the consent of all the parties to the dispute.

In respect of the reservation made by Algeria, the Federal Republic of Germany also holds the view that the reservation made by Algeria regarding article 7 of the Convention is likewise incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention because for all matters which concern national security it reserves in a general and thus unspecific manner the right of the Government of Algeria to apply the provisions only within the limits established by national laws, regulations and practices.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers ... that such reservations, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking the general principles of national law and the Constitution, may raise doubts as to the commitment of this State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands further considers that the reservations made by Algeria regarding article 2 (f), article 5 (a), article 9 and article 16 of the Convention are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Algeria.

In the view of the Government of Norway, a statement by which a State Party purports to limit its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of internal or religious law may create doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. Under well-established international treaty law, a State is not permitted to invoke internal law as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. Furthermore, the Government of Norway considers that reservation made by the Government of Algeria with respect to certain specific provisions of the Convention is so extensive as to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, and thus not permitted under article 28, paragraph 2, of the Convention. For theses reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the reservations made by the Government of Algeria. The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and Algeria.

Several Governments (Sweden) notified the Secretary-General that they consider the reservations made by the Government of Algeria upon accession as incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention and, therefore, prohibited by virtue of its article 28 (2).

Several Governments (Portugal) notified the Secretary-General that they consider the reservations made by the Government of Algeria upon accession as incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention and, therefore, prohibited by virtue of its article 28 (2).

Several Governments (Denmark) notified the Secretary-General that they consider the reservations made by the Government of Algeria upon accession as incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention and, therefore, prohibited by virtue of its article 28 (2).

Withdrawal of reservation regarding article 9 (2).

[…]

c) Reservation concerning article 15, paragraph 2, and article 16, paragraph 1 (h):

Said provisions shall be applied subject to several interim provisions of the matrimonial regime (Civil Code, articles 9 (e) and 10, final section).

Said provisions shall be without prejudice to Swiss military legislation prohibiting women from performing functions involving armed conflict, except in self-defence.

In reference to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, done in New York on 18 December 1979, I have the honor, in the name of the Swiss Federal Council, to inform you that Switzerland withdraws its reservation formulated relating to article 16 (1) (g) of the said Convention. The reservation formulated at the time of the deposit of the instrument of accession by Switzerland on 27 March 1997 and withdrawn hereby, reads as follows:

The other reservations by Switzerland relating to this Convention and not yet withdrawn are maintained. For clarity, I specify in particular the maintenance of the following reservation relating to article 15, paragraph 2 and to article 16, paragraph 1 (h) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women:‘Said provisions shall be applied subject to several interim provisions of the matrimonial regime (Civil Code, articles 9 (e) and 10, final section)’.

The Government of the Lebanese Republic enters reservations regarding article 9 (2), and article 16 (1) (c) (d) (f) and (g) (regarding the right to choose a family name).In accordance with paragraph 2 of article 29, the Government of the Lebanese Republic declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of that article.

The Government of Sweden considers that the reservations made by Lebanon upon accession are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2) and therefore objects to them.

In this context the Government of Sweden wishes to take this opportunity to make the observation that the reason why reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not acceptable is precisely that otherwise they would render a basic international obligation of a contractual nature meaningless. Incompatible reservations, made in respect of the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, do not only cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving states to the objects and purpose of this Convention, but moreover, contribute to undermine the basis of international contractual law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties also are respected, as to object and purpose, by other parties.

Austria is of the view that a reservation by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention in a general and unspecified manner by invoking internal law creates doubts as to the commitment of Lebanon with its obligations under the Convention, essential for the fulfillment of its object and purpose It is in the common interests 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.

Austria is further of the view that a general reservation of the kind made by the Government of Lebanon, which does not clearly specify the provisions of the Convention to which it applies and the extent of the derogation therefrom, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law.

Given the general character of this reservation a final assessment as to its admissibility under international law cannot be made without further clarification.

According to international law a reservation is inadmissible to the extent as its application negatively affects the compliance by a State with its obligations under the Convention essential for the fulfillment of its object and purpose.

Therefore, Austria cannot consider the reservation made by the Government of Lebanon as admissible unless the Government of Lebanon, by providing additional information or through subsequent practice, ensures that the reservation is compatible with the provisions essential for the implementation of the object and purpose of the Convention.

This view by Austria would not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Convention between Lebanon and Austria.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the reservations made by Lebanon incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 28, paragraph 2).

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the [said] reservations. These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Lebanon and the Kingdom of the Netherlands

The Government of Denmark is of the view that the reservations made by the Government of Lebanon raise doubts as to the commitment of Lebanon to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to article 28, paragraph 2 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted. For this reason, the Government of Denmark objects to the said reservations made by the Government of Lebanon.

The Government of Denmark recommends the Government of Lebanon to reconsider their reservations to [the Covenant].

General

Specific articles

Article 9

The British Nationality Act 1981, which was brought into force with effect from January 1983, is based on principles which do not allow of any discrimination against women within the meaning of article 1 as regards acquisition, change, or retention of their nationality or as regards the nationality of their children.

The United Kingdom's acceptance of article 9 on behalf of Hong Kong shall not, however, be taken to invalidate the continuation of certain temporary or transitional provisions which will continue in force beyond that date.

Article 11

The United Kingdom on behalf of Hong Kong reserves the right to apply all Hong Kong legislation and the rules of pension schemes affecting retirement pensions, survivors' benefits and other benefits in relation to death or retirement (including retirement on grounds of redundancy) whether or not derived from a social security scheme. This reservation will apply equally to any further legislation which may modify or replace such legislation, or the rules of pension schemes, on the understanding that the terms of such legislation will be compatible with the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention in respect of Hong Kong.

The United Kingdom on behalf of Hong Kong reserves the right to apply any non-discriminatory requirement for a qualifying period of employment for the application of the provisions contained in article 11(2).

Article 15

In relation to article 15, paragraph 3, the United Kingdom on behalf of Hong Kong understands the intention of this provisions to be that only those terms or elements of a contract or other private instrument which are discriminatory in the sense described are to be deemed null and void, but not necessarily the contract or instrument as a whole.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the view that the reservation, with regard to compatibility of CEDAW rules with Islamic law, raises doubts as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to CEDAW. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers this reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany notes furthermore that the reservation to Paragraph 2 of article 9 of CEDAW aims to exclude one obligation of non-discrimination which is so important in the context of CEDAW as to render this reservation contrary to the essence of the Convention.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women.

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

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women on [7] September 2000, regarding any interpretation of the Convention that may be incompatible with the norms of Islamic law and regarding article 9, paragraph 2.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that the general reference to Islamic law, without specifying its content, creates doubts among the other States parties about the extent to which the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia commits itself to fulfil its obligations under the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain is of the view that such a reservation by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, since it refers to the Convention as a whole and seriously restricts or even excludes its application on a basis as ill-defined as the general reference to Islamic law.

Furthermore, the reservation to article 9, paragraph 2, aims at excluding one of the obligations concerning non-discrimination, which is the ultimate goal of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain recalls that according to article 28, paragraph 2, of the Convention, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

Therefore, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain objects to the said reservations by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia at the time of its ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, as to any interpretation of the provisions of the Convention that is incompatible with the norms of Islamic law.

The Government of Sweden is of the view that this general reservation, which does not clearly specify the provisions of the convention to which it applies and the extent of the derogation therefrom, raises doubts as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the object and purpose of the Convention.

It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have been chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. According to customary law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid general reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

This shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Kingdom of Sweden, without the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia benefiting from the said reservation.

The Government of the French Republic has examined the reservations made by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, adopted in New York on 18 December 1979. By stating that in case of contradiction between any term of the Convention and the norms of Islamic law, it is not under obligation to observe the terms of the Convention, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia formulates a reservation of general, indeterminate scope that gives the other States parties absolutely no idea which provisions of the Convention are affected or might be affected in future. The Government of the French Republic believes that the reservation could make the provisions of the Convention completely ineffective and therefore objects to it. The second reservation, concerning article 9, paragraph 2, rules out equality of rights between men and women with respect to the nationality of their children and the Government of the French Republic therefore objects to it.

These objections do not preclude the Convention’s entry into force between Saudi Arabia and France. The reservation rejecting the means of dispute settlement provided for in article 29, paragraph 1, of the Convention is in conformity with the provisions of article 29, paragraph 2.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the reservation made on 7 September by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (New York, 18 December 1979), regarding any interpretation of the provisions of the Convention that is incompatible with the precept of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. It has also examined the reservation to article 9.2 of the Convention.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic is of the view that the first reservation refers in general terms to the Islamic law, failing to specify clearly its content and, therefore, leaving the other State parties with doubts as to the real extent of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's commitment to the Convention.

Furthermore, it also considers the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia incompatible with the objective and purpose of the aforesaid Convention, for it refers to the whole of the Convention, and it seriously limits or even excludes its application on a vaguely defined basis, such as the global reference to the Islamic law.

Regarding the reservation to article 9.2, the Government of the Portuguese Republic is of the view that the said reservation intends to exclude one of the obligations of non-discrimination, which is the essence of the Convention.

Therefore, the Government of the Portuguese Republic objects to the aforementioned reservations made by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The Government of Denmark has examined the reservations made by the Government of Saudi Arabia upon ratification on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women as to any interpretation of the provisions of the Convention that is incompatible with the norms of Islamic law.

The Government of Denmark finds that the general reservation with reference to the provisions of Islamic law are of unlimited scope and undefined character. Consequently, the Government of Denmark considers the said reservations as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law.

The Government of Denmark furthermore notes that the reservation to paragraph 2 of article 9 of the Convention aims to exclude one obligation of non-discrimination which is the aim of the Convention and therefore renders this reservation contrary to the essence of the Convention.

The Government of Denmark therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention in its entirety between Saudi Arabia and Denmark.

The Government of Denmark recommends the Government of Saudi Arabia to reconsider its reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

Austria has examined the reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women made by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in its note to the Secretary-General of 7 September 2000.

The fact that the reservation concerning any interpretation of the provisions of the Convention that is incompatible with the norms of Islamic law does not clearly specify the provisions of the Convention to which it applies and the extent of the derogation there-from raises doubts as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the Convention.

Given the general character of this reservation a final assessment as to its admissibility under international law cannot be made without further clarification. Until the scope of the legal effects of this reservation is sufficiently specified by the Government of Saudi Arabia, Austria considers the reservation as not affecting any provision the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling the object and purpose of the Convention. In Austria’s view, however, the reservation in question is inadmissible to the extent that its application negatively affects the compliance by Saudi Arabia with its obligations under the Convention essential for the fulfilment of its object and purpose. Austria does not consider the reservation made by the Government of Saudi Arabia as admissible unless the Government of Saudi Arabia, by providing additional information or through subsequent practice, ensures that the reservation is compatible with the provisions essential for the implementation of the object and purpose of the Convention.

As to the reservation to Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Convention Austria is of the view that the exclusion of such an important provision of non-discrimination is not compatible with object and purpose of the Convention. Austria therefore objects to this reservation.

This position, however, does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Convention between Saudi Arabia and Austria.

[…] refer to the reservation […]

The Government of the United Kingdom note that a reservation which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define for other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore object to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government [of] the Kingdom of the Saudi Arabia.

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

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations made by the Government of Saudi Arabia at the time of its [ratification of] the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservation concerning the national law of Saudi Arabia, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of this State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands furthermore considers that the reservation made by Saudi Arabia regarding article 9, paragraph 2, of the Convention is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that according to paragraph 2 of Article 28 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party should be respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Saudi Arabia to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

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