Partijen en gegevens

The Holy See, in conformity with the dispositions of Article 51, [ratifies] to the Convention on the Rights of the Child with the following reservations:

‘The Holy See regards the present convention as a proper and laudable instrument aimed at protection the rights and interest of children, who are ‘that precious treasure given to each generation as a challenge to its wisdom and humanity’ (Pope John Paul II, 26 April 1984).

The Holy See recognizes that the convention represents an enactment of principles previously adopted by the United Nations, and once effective as a ratified instrument, will safeguard the rights of the child before as well as after birth, as exp ressly affirmed in the ‘Declaration of the Rights of the Child’ [Res. 136 (XIV)] and restated in the ninth preambular paragraph of the Convention. The Holy See remains confident that the ninth preambular paragraph will serve as the perspective through which the rest of the Convention will be interpreted, in conformity with Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969.

By acceding to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Holy See intends to give renewed expression to its constant concern for the well-being of children and families. In consideration of its singular nature and position, the Holy See, in acceding to this Convention, does not intend to prescind in any way from its specific mission which is of a religious and moral character.

The Arab Republic of Egypt, considering that the Islamic Shariah is the fundamental source of legislation in Egyptian positive law and that, under the said Shariah, it is obligatory to provide all means of protection and care to children by diverse ways and means, not including, however, the system of adoption established in certain other bodies of positive law.

Expresses its reservation with respect to all the clauses and provisions relating to adoption in this Convention, and in particular to those parts of articles 20 and 21 of the Convention which concern adoption.

The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International 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 all parties. The Government therefore objects to the reservation.

……… This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and [Bangladesh]. ’

‛ ……… These objections do not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and …… Bangladesh, …… ’

The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia guarantees the fundamental rights of the child irrespective of their sex, ethnic or race. The Constitution prescribes those rights to be implemented by national laws and regulations.

The ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by the Republic of Indonesia does not imply the acceptance of obligations going beyond the Constitutional limits nor the acceptance of any obligation to introduce any rights beyond those prescribed under the Constitution.

With reference to the provisions of Articles 1, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22 and 29 of this Convention, the Government of the Republic of Indonesia declares that it will apply these articles in conformity with its Constitution. ’

The Government of Finland has taken note of the reservation made by the Republic of Indonesia upon ratification of the said Convention, by which Indonesia expresses that ‘With reference to the provisions of Article 1, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22 and 29 of this Convention, the Government of the Republic of Indonesia declares that it will apply these articles in conformity with its Constitution’.

In the view of the Government of Finland 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.

For the above reason the Government of Finland objects to the said reservation. However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between Finland and the Republic of Indonesia. ’

The Government of Sweden has examined the content of the reservation made by the Republic of Indonesia, by which the Republic of Indonesia expresses that … (zie boven) …

A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving 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 also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservation.

This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and the Republic of Indonesia. ’

The Government of Norway has examined the content of the reservation made by the Republic of Indonesia, by which the Republic of Indonesia expresses that ‘The ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by the Republic of Indonesia does not imply the acceptance of obligations going beyond the constitutional limits nor the acceptance of any obligation to introduce any right beyond those prescribed under the Constitution’ and further … (zie boven) …

A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may create doubts about the commitments of the reserving 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 also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Norway, therefore, objects to this reservation.

This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Norway and the Republic of Indonesia. ’

The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International 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 all parties. The Government therefore objects to the reservation.

… This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and [Indonesia]. ’

The Government of the Republic of Mali declares that, in view of the provisions of the Mali Family Code, there is no reason to apply article 16 of the Convention.

Article 26 — The Government of Malta is bound by the obligations arising out of this Article to the extend of present social security legislation. ’

whereas the Government of the Republic of Mauritius acceded to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1990,

and whereas, upon accession to the Convention, the Government of the Republic of Mauritius made a reservation to Article 22 of the Convention,

now therefore I, Dr. the Hon. Navinchandra Ramgoolam, G.C.S.K. Prime Minister, declare that the Government of the Republic of Mauritius, having reviewed the said reservation, hereby withdraws the same.

‛ Provisions of the Convention shall be interpreted in the light of the principle of Islamic laws and values. ’

The Government of Finland has taken note for the reservation made by Pakistan upon signature of the said Convention, by which Pakistan expresses that … (zie boven) …

In the view of the Government of Finland 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. For the above reason the Government of Finland objects to the said reservation. However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between Finland and Pakistan. ’

The Government of Sweden has examined the content of the reservation made by Pakistan, by which Pakistan expresses that … (zie boven) …

A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving 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 also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservation.

This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and Pakistan. ’

The Government of Norway has examined the content of the reservation made by Pakistan, by which Pakistan expresses that … (zie boven) …

A reservation by which a State party limits its reponsibilities[lees: responsibilities] under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may create doubts about the commitments of the reserving 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 also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Norway, therefore, objects to this reservation.

This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Norway and Pakistan. ’

With reference to the Declaration submitted on the occasion of the signing, on 26 January 1990, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by that Government on 6 December 1989, the Government of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay affirms in regard to the provisions of article 38, paragraphs 2 and 3, that in accordance with Uruguayan law it would have been desirable for the lower age limit for taking a direct part in hostilities in the event of an armed conflict to be set at 18 years instead of 15 years as provided in the Convention.

Furthermore, the Government of Uruguay declares that, in the exercise of its sovereign will, it will not authorize any persons under its jurisdiction who have not attained the age of 18 years to take a direct part in hostilities and will not under any circumstances recruit persons who have not attained the age of 18 years. ’

The Argentine Republic enters a reservation to subparagraphs (b), (c), (d) en (e) of article 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and declares that those subparagraphs shall not apply in areas within its jurisdiction because, in its view, before they can be applied a strict mechanism must exist for the legal protection of children in matters of inter-country adoption, in order to prevent trafficking in and the sale of children.

Concerning article 1 of the Convention, the Argentine Republic declares that the article must be interpreted to the effect that a child means every human being from the moment of conception up to the age of eighteen.

Concerning subparagraph (f) of article 24 of the Convention, the Argentine Republic considers that questions relating to family planning are the exclusive concern of parents in accordance with ethical and moral principles and understands it to be a State obligation, under this article, to adopt measures providing guidance for parents and education for responsible parenthood.

Concerning article 38 of the Convention, the Argentine Republic declares that it would have liked the Convention categorically to prohibit the use of children in armed conflicts; such a prohibition exists in its domestic law which, by virtue of article 41 of the Convention, it shall continue to apply in this regard.

The Government of Norway has examined the content of the reservation made by the Republic of Djibouti, by which the Republic of Djibouti expresses that ‘(The Government of the Republic of Djibouti) hereby formally declares its accession to the convention and pledges, on behalf of the Republic of Djibouti, to adhere to it conscientiously and at all times, except that it shall not consider itself bound by any provisions or articles that are incompatible with its religion and its traditional values.’

A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may create doubts about the commitments of the reserving 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 also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Norway, therefore, objects to this reservation.

This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Norway and the Republic of Djibouti. ’

‛ … These objections do not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and … Djibouti, … ’

Partial withdrawal of reservation: Upon ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Government of the Republic of Djibouti made a declaration [… that the Government of Djibouti shall not consider itself bound by] any provisions or articles that are incompatible with its religion and its traditional values.

We, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, declare that the Government of the Republic of Djibouti, after having examined the declaration withdraws the said declaration with the exception of the reservations made to articles 14 and 21 of the said Convention.

Australia accepts the general principles of Article 37. In relation to the second sentence of paragraph (c), the obligation to separate children from adults in prison is accepted only to the extent that such imprisonment is considered by the responsible authorities to be feasible and consistent with the obligations that children be able to maintain contact with their families, having regard to the geography and demography of Australia. Australia, therefore, ratifies the Convention to the extent that it is unable to comply with the obligation imposed by Article 37(c). ’

The competent authorities (ward authorities) of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia may, under Article 9, paragraph 1 of the Convention, make decisions to deprive parents of their right to raise their children and give them an upbringing without prior judicial determination in accordance with the internal legislation of the SFR of Yugoslavia. ’

The Permanent Mission of Slovenia to the United Nations would like to express its disagreement with the content of the above-stated notification. The State which in 1991 notified its ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and made the reservation was the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), but the State which on 28 January 1997 notified the withdrawal of its reservation was the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). In that connection the Mission would like to draw attention to the resolutions of the Security Council (757, 777) and the General Assembly (47/1), all from 1992, which stated that ‘the state formerly known as the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has ceased to exist’ and to the opinion of the Arbitration Commission of the UN/EC Conference on the former Yugoslavia that ‘the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) is a new State which cannot be considered the sole successor to the SFRY.’

The above-mentioned notification is therefore incorrect and misleading since it is erroneously suggesting that the State which would like to withdraw the reservation is the same person under international law as the State which made the reservation.

It is believed that the Secretary-General should be precise in making references to States Parties to international agreements in respect of which he performs depositary functions. Therefore it is the opinion of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia that the withdrawal of the reservation made by the FRY cannot be considered valid, since it was made by a State that did not make the reservation. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should, as one of the successor States of the former SFRY, notify its succession if it wishes to be considered a Party to the Convention. ’

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Croatia to the United Nations would like to express its disagreement with the content of the above-quoted notification. The State which in 1991 notified its ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and made the reservation with respect to article 9, paragraph 1 of the Convention was the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). The State which on 28 January 1997 notified the withdrawal of the above-mentioned reservation was the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), a new State which is neither the continuation nor the sole successor of the former SFRY. In this regard the Permanent mission of the Republic of Croatia to the United Nations would like to draw attention to the resolutions of the Security Council 777 (1992) and 821 (1993) and to General Assembly resolution 47/1 (1992), which state that ‘the state formerly known as the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has ceased to exist’. The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Croatia to the United Nations would also like to draw attention to Opinion No. 10 of the Arbitration Commission of the UN/EC Conference on the former Yugoslavia, which states that ‘the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) is a new State which cannot be considered the sole successor to the SFRYI’.

Since the FRY has neither notified succession of the Convention on the Rights of the Child nor acceded to the Convention in any other appropriate manner in accordance with international law, it cannot be considered a Party to the Convention. The notification made by the Government of the FRY is incorrect and misleading since it is erroneously suggesting that the State which would like to withdraw the reservation is the same subject of international law as a State which had made the reservation. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Government of the Republic of Croatia that the notification made by the Government of the FRY on 28 January 1997 can only be considered null and void. ’

The Permanent Mission of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the United Nations considers the above-mentioned note to be incorrect and misleading since it suggests that the State which on January 28, 1997 notified withdrawal of its reservation is the same legal entity under international law that notified its ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and made the reservation in 1991, that is the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In this context, the Permanent Mission of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the United Nations would like to draw attention to the resolutions of the Security Council (757, 777) and the General Assembly (47/1), all from 1992, which stated that ‘the state formerly known as the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has ceased to exist’ and to the opinion of the Arbitration Commission of the UN/EC Conference on the former Yugoslavia that ‘the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) is a new state which cannot be considered the sole successor to the SFRY’.

It is believed that the Secretary-General should be precise in making references to States Parties to international agreements in respect of which he performs depositary functions. Therefore it is the opinion of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina that the withdrawal of the reservation made by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia cannot be considered valid, since it was made by a State that did not make the reservation. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should, as one of the successor States of the former SFRY, notify its succession if it wishes to be considered a Party to the Convention. ’

In the Secretary-General's Depositary Notification, […] it is stated that ‘on 28 January 1997, the Government of Yugoslavia notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation with respect to article 9, paragraph 1 of the Convention, that it had made upon the ratification of the Convention […]’.

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Macedonia would like to draw the attention to the fact that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has neither notified its succession to the Convention, nor has it adhered to the Convention in any other appropriate manner consistent with the International Treaty Law. Accordingly, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is not, and can not be considered as a Party to the Convention. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia that the notification made by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 28 January 1997, regarding the Convention on the Rights of the Child, is null and void, and can not have legal effect. ’

‛ In cases of irrevocable adoptions, which are based on the principle of anonymity of such adoptions, and of articifial fertilization, where the physician charged with the operation is required to ensure that the husband and wife on one hand and the donor on the other remain unknown to each other, the non-communication of a natural parent's name or natural parents' names to the child is not in contradiction with this provision. ’

The Government of Colombia, pursuant to article 2, paragraph 1(d), of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, concluded on 23 May 1969, declares that for the purpose of article 38, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Convention on the rights of the child, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20 November 1989, the age referred to in said paragraphs shall be understood to be 18 years, given the fact that, under Colombian law, the minimum age for recruitment into the armed forces of personnel called for military service is 18 years.

Reservations to articles 14 and 21.

The Government of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas upon signing the Convention reserves the right not to apply the provisions of Article 2 of the said Convention insofar as those provisions relate to the conferment of citizenship upon a child having regard to the provisions of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas. ’

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan expresses its reservation and does not consider itself bound by articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention, which grant the child the right to freedom of choice of religion and concern the question of adoption, since they are at variance with the precepts of the tolerant Islamic Shariah. ’

The Government of Sweden has examined the content of the reservation made by Jordan, by which Jordan states … (zie boven) …

A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving 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 also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservation.

This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and Jordan. ’

The Government of Finland has examined the contents of the reservation made by Jordan upon ratification, by which Jordan states … (zie boven) …

In the view of the Government of Finland this reservation is subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke general principles of national law as justification for failure to perform its treaty obligations. For the above reason the Government of Finland objects to the said reservation. However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between Finland and Jordan. ’

In ratifying the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 November 1989, the Republic of Poland, in accordance with the provision contained in article 51, paragraph 1, of the Convention, registers the following reservations:

Article 40, paragraph 2(b)(v) shall not be binding on Denmark.

It is a fundamental principle in the Danish Administration of Justice Act that everybody shall be entitled to have any penal measures imposed on him or her by a court of first instance reviewed by a higher court. There are, however, some provisions limiting this right in certain cases, for instance verdicts returned by a jury on the question of guilt, which have not been reversed by the legally trained judges of the court.

Until further notice the Convention shall not apply to Greenland and the Faroe Islands. ’

With reference to article 1 of the Convention, the Government of the Republic of Cuba declares that in Cuba, under the domestic legislation in force, majority is not attained at 18 years of age for purposes of the full exercise of civic rights.

Article 7

The State of Kuwait understands the concept of this Article to signify the right of the child who was born in Kuwait and whose parents are unknown (parentless) to be granted the Kuwaiti nationality as stipulated by the Kuwaiti Nationality Laws.

Article 21

The State of Kuwait as it adheres to the provisions of the Islamic shariah as the main source of legislation, strictly bans abondoning the Islamic religion and does not therefore approve adoption.

The Republic of Korea … considers itself not bound by the provisions of paragraph 3 of Article 9, paragraph (a) of Article 21 and sub-paragraph (b) (v) of paragraph 2 of Article 40.

‛ On 16 October 2008, the Government of the Republic of Korea informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservation in respect of article 9, paragraph 3 made upon ratification. ’

On 11 August 2017, the Government of the Republic of Korea informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservation in respect of article 21, paragraph (a), made upon ratification.

Article 30

Statement of Understanding

It is the understanding of the Government of Canada that, in matters relating to aboriginal peoples of Canada, the fulfilment of its responsibilities under Article 4 of the Convention must take into account the provisions of Article 30. In particular, in assessing what measures are appropriate to implement the rights recognized in the Convention for aboriginal children, due regard must be paid to not denying their right, in community with other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion to use their own language. ’

‘… [The Government of the United Kingdom reserves] the right to extend the Convention at a later date to any territory for whose international relations the Government of the United Kingdom is responsible … ’

The United Kingdom reserves the right to apply such legislation, in so far as it relates to the entry into, stay in and departure from the United Kingdom of those who do not have the right under the law of the United Kingdom to enter and remain in the United Kingdom, and to the acquisition and possession of citizenship, as it may deem necessary from time to time.

Employment legislation in the United Kingdom does not treat persons under 18, but over the school-leaving age as children, but as ‘young people’. Accordingly the United Kingdom reserves the right to continue to apply article 32 subject to such employment legislation.

Where at any time there is a lack of suitable accommodation or adequate facilities for a particular individual in any institution in which young offenders are detained, or where the mixing of adults and children is deemed to be mutually beneficial, the United Kingdom reserves the right not to apply article 37(c) in so far as those provisions require children who are detained to be accomodated separately from adults. ’

The United Kingdom's reservations to Article 32 in respect of its overseas territories, formerly referred to as ‘dependent territories’, set out in the Declarations dated 7 September 1994, are unaffected. ’

… the Government of the United Kingdom withdraws the following reservations, made at the time of ratification of the Convention: The United Kingdom reserves the right to apply such legislation, in so far as it relates to the entry into, stay in and departure from the United Kingdom of those who do not have the right under the law of the United Kingdom to enter and remain in the United Kingdom, and to the acquisition and possession of citizenship, as it may deem necessary from time to time.

and

Where at any time there is a lack of suitable accommodation or adequate facilities for a particular individual in any institution in which young offenders are detained or where the mixing of adults and children is deemed to be mutually beneficial, the United Kingdom reserves the right not to apply article 37 (c) in so far as those provisions require children who are detained to be accommodated separately from adults.

The withdrawal of these reservations in respect of the territory of the United Kingdom is without prejudice to the continued applicability of the reservation and declarations made by the United Kingdom in respect of its dependent territories.

The Federal Republic of Germany considers the first of the declarations deposited by the Republic of Tunisia to be a reservation. It restricts the application of the first sentence of article 4 to the effect that any national legislative or statutory decisions adopted to implement the Convention may not conflict with the Tunisian Constitution. Owing to the very general wording of this passage the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is unable to perceive which provisions of the Convention are covered, or may be covered at some time in the future, by the reservation and in what manner. There is a similar lack of clarity with regards to the reservations relating to article 2 .

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to both these reservations. This objection does no prevent the Convention from entering into force as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Tunisia. ’

The following declaration and reservations were withdrawn:

Declaration:

Reservations:

[T]he People's Republic of China shall fulfil its obligations provided by Article 6 of the Convention under the prerequisite that the Convention accords with the provisions of Article 25 concerning family planning of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China and in conformity with the provisions of Article 2 of the Law of Minor Children of the People's Republic of China.

In accordance with the reservations made by it with respect to the parallel guarantees of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Federal Republic of Germany declares in respect of Article 40 (2) (b) (ii) and (v) of the Convention that these provisions shall be applied in such a way that, in the case of minor infringement of the penal law, there shall not in each and every case exist:

Withdrawal of declaration made upon ratification concerning article 3(2) of the Convention.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany declares that it welcomes the Convention on the Rights of the Child as a milestone in the development of international law and that it will take the opportunity afforded by the ratification of the Convention to initiate reforms in its domestic legislation that are in keeping with the spirit of the Convention and that it considers appropriate, in line with Article 3 (2) of the Convention, to ensure the well-being of the child. The planned measures include, in particular a revision of the law on parental custody in respect of children whose parents have not married, are permanently living apart while still married, or are divorced. The principal aim will be to improve the conditions for the exercise of parental custody by both parents in such cases as well. The Federal Republic of Germany also declares that domestically the Convention does not apply directly. It establishes state obligations under international law that the Federal Republic of Germany fulfils in accordance with its national law, which conforms with the Convention.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that Article 18 (1) of the Convention does not imply that by virtue of the entry into force of this provision parental custody, automatically and without taking into account the best interests of the respective child, applies to both parents even in the case of children whose parents have not married, are permanently living apart while still married, or are divorced. Such an interpretation would be incompatible with Article 3 (1) of the Convention. The situation must be examined on a case-by-case basis, particularly where the parents cannot agree on the joint exercise of custody.

The Federal Republic of Germany therefore declares that the provisions of the Convention are also without prejudice to the provisions of national law concerning

This applies irrespective of the planned revision of the law on parental custody, the details of which remain within the discretion of the national legislator.

In addition, the Federal Republic of Germany confirms the declaration it made in Geneva on 23 February 1989:

Nothing in the Convention may be interpreted as implying that unlawful entry by an alien into the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany or his unlawful stay there is permitted; nor may any provision be interpreted to mean that it restricts the right of the Federal Republic of Germany to pass laws and regulations concerning the entry of aliens and the conditions of their stay or to make a distinction between nationals and aliens. ’

Withdrawal of reservations and declarations.

The Government of Ireland hereby formally make objection to the reservations made on ratification of the Convention by Bangladesh, Djibouti, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Myanmar, Pakistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey.

The Government of Ireland consider that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may create doubts as to the commitment of those States to the object and purpose of the Convention.

This object shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and the aforementioned States. ’

Withdrawal of declaration with regard to article 9.

Withdrawal of declaration with regard to article 37.

Nothing in this Convention shall affect the right of the Government of New Zealand to continue to distinguish as it considers appropriate in its law and practice between persons according to the nature of their authority to be in New Zealand including but not limited to their entitlement to benefits and other protection described in the Convention and the Government of New Zealand reserves the right to interpret and apply the Convention accordingly.

The Government of New Zealand considers that the rights of the child provided for in article 32(1) are adequately protected by its existing law. It therefore reserves the right not to legislate further or to take additional measures as may be envisaged in article 32(2).

The Government of New Zealand reserves the right not to apply article 37(c) in circumstances where the shortage of suitable facilities makes the mixing of juveniles and adults unavoidable; and further reserves the right not to apply article 37(c) where the interests of other juveniles in an establishment require the removal of a particular juvenile offender or where mixing is considered to be of benefit to the persons concerned; ’

‛ the Government of New Zealand …… declares that such ratification shall extend to Tokelau only upon notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations of such extension. ’

The Kingdom of Morocco, whose Constitution guarantees to all the freedom to pursue his religious affairs, makes a reservation to the provisions of article 14, which accords children freedom of religion, in view of the fact that Islam is the State religion.

Withdrawal of reservation in respect of article 14:

‘The Kingdom of Morocco, whose Constitution guarantees to all the freedom to pursue his religious affairs, makes a reservation to the provisions of article 14, which accords children freedom of religion, in view of the fact that Islam is the State religion.’

The Government of the Kingdom of Morocco interprets the provisions of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the light of the Constitution of 7 October 1996 and the other relevant provisions of its domestic law, as follows:

Article 6 of the Constitution, which provides that Islam, the State religion, shall guarantee freedom of worship for all.

Article 54, paragraph 6, of Act 70-03 (the Family Code), which stipulates that parents owe their children the right to religious guidance and education based on good conduct.

By this declaration, the Kingdom of Morocco reaffirms its attachment to universally recognized human rights and its commitment to the purposes of the aforementioned Convention.

The Syrian Arab Republic has reservations on the Convention's provisions which are not in conformity with the Syrian Arab legislations and with the Islamic Shariaa's principles, in particular the content of Article (14) related to the Right of the Child to the freedom of religion, and articles 20 and 21 concerning the adoption.

The Government of Sweden has also examined the content of the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon ratification, which reads as follows: … (zie boven) …

Under international treaty law, a State may not invoke internal law as a justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may cast doubts upon 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. All States Parties share a common interest in the respect for the object and purpose of the treaty to which they have chosen to become parties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic.

This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and the Syrian Arab Republic. ’

The Government of Finland has examined the contents of the reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic upon ratification of the said Convention, by which it expresses that … (zie boven) …

In view of the Government of Finland, the unlimited and undefined character of the first part of the said reservation creates serious doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. In its present formulation the reservation is clearly contrary to the object and purposes of the Convention. Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to such reservation.

The Government of Finland also recalls that the said reservation is 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 Government of Finland does not, however, consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Finland and the Syrian Arab Republic. ’

The Government of Italy has examined the reservation contained in the instrument of ratification of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the Convention on the Rights of the Child which reads as follows: … (zie boven) …

This reservation is too comprehensive and too general as to be compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of Italy therefore objects to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Syrian Arab Republic and Italy. ’

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the reservation contained in the instrument of ratification by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, which reads as follows: … (zie boven) …

This reservation, owing to its indefinite nature, does not meet the requirements of international law. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Syrian Arab Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany. ’

The Government of Norway has examined the content of the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon ratification, which reads as follows: … (zie boven) …

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 Syria's 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 Syrian Arab Republic. ’

The laws in effect in the Syrian Arab Republic do not recognize the system of adoption, although they do require that protection and assistance should be provided to those for whatever reason permanently or temporarily deprived of their family environment and that alternative care should be assured them through foster placement and kafalah, in care centres and special institutions and, without assimilation to their blood lineage (nasab), by foster families, in accordance with the legislation in force based on the principles of the Islamic Shariah.

The reservations of the Syrian Arab Republic to articles 20 and 21 mean that approval of the Convention should not in any way be interpreted as recognizing or permitting the system of adoption to which reference is made in these two articles and are subject to these limitations only.

The reservations of the Syrian Arab Republic to article 14 of the Convention are restricted only to its provisions relating to religion and do not concern those relating to thought or conscience. They concern: the extent to which the right in question might conflict with the right of parents and guardians to ensure the religious education of their children, as recognized by the United Nations and set forth in article 18, paragraph 4, of the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights; the extent to which it might conflict with the right, established by the laws in force, of a childs to choose a religion at an appointed time or in accordance with designated procedures or at a particular age in the case where he clearly has the mental and legal capacity to do so; and the extent to which it might conflict with public order and the principles of the Islamic Shariah on this matter that are in effect in the Syrian Arab Republic with respect to each case.

Withdrawal of reservations to articles 20 and 21 of the Convention made upon ratification.

In applying paragraph (c) of Article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Japan reserves the right not to be bound by the provision in its second sentence, that is, ‘every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not to do so’, considering the fact that in Japan as regards persons deprived of liberty, those who are below twenty years of age are to be generally separated from those who are of twenty years of age and over under its national law.

‛ [T]he Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran reserves the right not to apply any provisions or articles of the Convention that are incompatible with Islamic Laws and the internal legislation in effect. ’

The Government of Portugal has examined the contents of the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Iran, according to which the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran reserves the right not to apply any provisions or articles of the Convention that are incompatible with Islamic Laws and the internal legislation in effect.

A reservation by which a state limits its responsibilities under the Convention in a broad and vague manner and by invoking its internal law may create doubts on the commitments of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention and contribute to undermining 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 the object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Portugal therefore objects to this reservation.

This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and the Islamic Republic of Iran. ’

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the reservation contained in the instrument of ratification by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which reads as follows: ‘The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran reserves the right not to apply any provisions or articles of the Convention that are incompatible with Islamic Laws and the internal legislation in effect.’

This reservation, owing to its unlimited scope and undefined character, is inadmissible under international law. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, therefore, objects to the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Federal Republic of Germany.

Reservations are subject to the general principles of treaty law, according to which a party may not invoke its internal law as a justification for not performing its treaty obligations. It is the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are also respected, as to the object and purpose, by other parties and that States are prepared to undertake the legislative changes necessary to comply with such treaties. A reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention on the Rights of the Child shall according to Article 51 of the Convention not be permitted.

In this context the Government of Sweden also wishes to recall that according to Article 4 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child States shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized by the Convention.

In order to enable other parties to a convention to establish the scope of their treaty relations with the reserving State, and whether a reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of a treaty, the reservation should satisfy some basic criteria of specificity. The reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Iran does not as now formulated identify, in a way discernible to other parties to the Convention, which particular provisions of the Convention the Islamic Republic of Iran intends to apply.

Consequently, the Government of Sweden finds the reservation, which can not alter or modify obligations arising from the Convention in any respect, to be inadmissible and against the object and purpose of the treaty.

Moreover, reservations of a comprehensive and unspecified nature contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.

In view of the above, the Government of Sweden objects to the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Iran. ’

In the view of the Government of Finland, the unlimited and undefined character of the [said] reservation 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. The reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Iran does not clearly identify which particular provisions of the Convention the Islamic Republic of Iran does not intend to apply. In the view of the Government of Finland, reservations of such comprehensive and unspecified nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.

The Government of Finland also recalls that the said reservation is 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. Moreover, the internal legislation is also subject to changes which might further expand the unknown effects of the reservation.

In its present formulation the reservation is clearly incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore inadmissible under Article 51, paragraph 2, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to such reservation. The Government of Finland further notes that the reservation made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is devoid of legal effect.

The Government of Finland recommends the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to reconsider its reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. ’

The reservation poses difficulties for State parties to the Convention in identifying the provisions of the Convention which the Islamic Government of Iran does not intend to apply and consequently makes it difficult for State Parties to the Convention to determine the extent of their treaty relations with the reserving State.

The Government of Ireland hereby formally makes objection to the reservation by the Islamic Republic of Iran. ’

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 commitment of the reserving State party to the object and purpose of the Convention. Furthermore, under well-established international treaty law, a State party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. It is in the common interest of States that a treaty is respected by all parties as to its object and purpose. Norway maintains that the Iranian reservation, due to its unlimited scope and undefined character, is inadmissible under international law. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

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

Under article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties — which is reflected in article 51 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child — a reservation, in order to be admissible under international law, has to be compatible with object and purpose of the Treaty concerned. A reservation is incompatible with object and purpose of a treaty if it intends to derogate provisions the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling its object and purpose.

The Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 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 Islamic Republic of Iran, the Republic of Austria considers this reservation as not affecting any provision the implementation of which is essential to fulfilling the object and purpose of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Austria, however, objects to the admissibility of the reservation in question if the application of this reservation negatively affects the compliance by the Islamic Republic of Iran with its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child essential for the fulfilment of its object and purpose.

Austria could not consider the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Iran as admissible under the regime of Article 51 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties unless Iran, 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 on the Rights of the Child. ’

‛ This reservation, owing to its unlimited scope and undefined character, is inadmissible under international law. The Government of the Italian Republic, therefore, objects to the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Iran. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Islamic Republic of Iran and (the) Italian Republic. ’

[T]he Government of Western Samoa whilst recognising the importance of providing free primary education as specified under Article 28(1)(a) of the Convention on the Rights of child

And being mindful of the fact that the greater portion of schools within Western Samoa that provide primary education are controlled by bodies outside the control of the Government

Pursuant then to Article 51 the Government of Western Samoa thus reserves the right to allocate resources to the primary level sector of education in Western Samoa in contrast to the requirement of Article 28(1)(a) to provide free primary education. ’

Article 26

The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of article 26 of the Convention with the reservation that these provisions shall not imply an independent entitlement of children to social security, including social insurance.

Article 37

The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of article 37(c) of the Convention with the reservation that these provisions shall not prevent the application of adult penal law to children of sixteen years and older, provided that certain criteria laid down by law have been met.

Article 40

The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of article 40 of the Convention with the reservation that cases involving minor offences may be tried without the presence of legal assistance and that with respect to such offences the position remains that no provision is made in all cases for a review of the facts or of any maeasures imposed as a consequence. ’

Article 14

It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that article 14 of the Convention is in accordance with the provisions of article 18 of the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights of 19 December 1966 and that this article shall include the freedom of a child to have or adopt a religion or belief of his or her choice as soon as the child is capable of making such choice in view of his or her age or maturity.

Article 22

With regard to article 22 of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares:

Article 38

With regard to article 38 of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it is of the opinion that States should not be allowed to involve children directly or indirectly in hostilities and that the minimum age for the recruitment or incorporation of children in the armed forces should be above fifteen years.

In times of armed conflict, provisions shall prevail that are most conducive to guaranteeing the protection of children under international law, as referred to in article 41 of the Convention. ’

With regard to the reservations made by Djibouti, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Syrian Arab Republic and Iran upon ratification:

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of these States 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 therefore objects to these reservations.

This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the aforementioned States. ’

The Union of Myanmar accepts in principle the provisions of Article 37 as they are in consonance with its laws, rules, regulations, procedures and practice as well as with its traditional, cultural and religious values. However, having regard to the exigencies of the situation obtaining in the country at present, the Union of Myanmar states as follows:

The Federal Republic of Germany considers that the reservations made by the Union of Myanmar regarding articles 15 and 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (article 51, paragraph 2) and therefore objects to them.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Union of Myanmar and the Federal Republic of Germany.

The Government of Portugal considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of National Law may create doubts on the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contribute to undermining the basis of International 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 all parties. The Government therefore objects to the reservation.

This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and Myanmar. ’

‛ … These objections do not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and … Myanmar. ’

The application of Articles 7, 22 and 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child shall be subject to the national laws, regulations and prevailing practices in Thailand. ’

The Government of Sweden has examined the contents of the reservation made by Thailand upon accession, which reads as follows: … (zie boven) …

A reservation by which a State party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law may cast doubts on 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. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected, as to the object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservations made by Thailand.’

‘… These objections do not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and Thailand … ’

The application of articles 7 and 22 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child shall be subject to the national laws, regulations and prevailing practices in Thailand. ’

Withdrawal of reservation to article 7 of the Convention.

The remaining reservation will now read as follows:

The application of article 22 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child shall be subject to the national laws, regulations and prevailing practices in Thailand.

While fully subscribing to the objectives and purposes of the Convention, realising that certain of the rights of the Child, namely those pertaining to the economic, social and cultural rights can only be progressively implemented in the developing countries, subject to the extent of available resources and within the framework of international co-operation; recognising that the child has to be protected from exploitation of all forms including economic exploitation; noting that for several reasons children of different ages do work in India; having prescribed minimum ages for employment in hazardous occupations and in certain other areas; having made regulatory provisions regarding hours and conditions of employment and being aware that it is not practical immediately to prescribe minimum ages for admission to each and every area of employment in India — the Government of India undertakes to take measures to progressively implement the provisions of Article 32, particularly paragraph 2(a), in accordance with its national legislation and relevant international instruments to which it is a State Party. ’

[Iraq] ha[s] seen fit to accept it [the Convention] … subject to a reservation in respect of article 14, paragraph 1, concerning the child's freedom of religion, as allowing a child to change his or her religion runs counter to the provisions of the Islamic Shariah. ’

The Republic of Slovenia reserves the right not to apply paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Convention since the internal legislation of the Republic of Slovenia provides for the right of competent authorities (centres for social work) to determine on separation of a child from his/her parents without a previous judicial review. ’

The Republic of Croatia reserves the right not to apply paragraph 1 of article 9 of the Convention since the internal legislation of the Republic of Croatia provides for the right of competent authorities (Centres for Social Work) to determine on separation of a child from his/her parents without a previous judicial review.

The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina reserves the right not to apply paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Convention since the internal legislation of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina provides for the right of competent authorities (guardianship authorities) to determine on separation of a child from his/her parents without a previous judicial review.

Withdrawal of reservation made upon succession:

‘The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina reserves the right not to apply paragraph 1 of article 9 of the Convention since the internal legislation of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina provides for the right of competent authorities (guardianship authorities) to determine on separation of a child from his/her parents without a previous judicial review.’

‛ Succession of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20 November 1989, does not imply its recognition on behalf of the Hellenic Republic. ’

The United Kingdom refers to the reservation and declarations a), b) and c) which accompanied its instrument of ratification and makes a similar reservation and declarations in respect of each of its dependent territories.

The United Kingdom, in respect of each of its dependent territories except Hong Kong and Pitcairn, reserves the right to apply Article 32 subject to the laws of those territories which treat certain persons under 18 not as children but as ‘young people’. In respect of Hong Kong, the United Kingdom reserves the right not to apply Article 32b) in so far as it might require regulation of the hours of employment of young persons who have attained the age of fifteen years in respect of work in non-industrial establishments.

Where at any time there is a lack of suitable detention facilities or where the mixing of adults and children is deemed to be mutually beneficial the United Kingdom, in respect of each of its dependent territories, reserves the right not to apply Article 37c) in so far as those provisions require children who are detained to be accommodated separately from adults.

The United Kingdom, in respect of Hong Kong and the Cayman Islands, will seek to apply the Convention to the fullest extent to children seeking asylum in those territories except in so far as conditions and resources make full implementation impracticable. In particular, in relation to Article 22, the United Kingdom reserves the right to continue to apply any legislation in those territories governing the detention of children seeking refugee status, the determiniation of their states and their entry into, stay in and departure from those territories.

The Government of the United Kingdom reserves the right to extent the Convention at a later date to any other territories for whose international relations the Government of the United Kingdom is responsible.

The Government of Denmark has examined the reservations made by Djibouti, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan and the Syrian Arab Republic upon ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Because of their unlimited scope and undefined character these reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law. Therefore, the Government of Denmark objects to these reservations. The convention remains in force in its entirety between Djibouti, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, the Syrian Arab Republic respectively and Denmark.

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 Government of Denmark recommends the governments of Djibouti, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan and the Syrian Arab Republic to reconsider their reservations to the Convention of the Rights of the Child. ’

‛ [The State of Qatar] enter(s) a … general reservation by the State of Qatar in respect of any provisions that conflict with the provisions of the Islamic Sharia. ’

The Government of Portugal has examined the contents of the reservation made by Qatar to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, according to which the State of Qatar enters a general reservation in respect of any provisions that conflict with the provisions of the Islamic.

In view of the Government of Portugal, a reservation by which a state limits its responsibilities under the Convention in a broad and vague manner, and by invoking general principles of International Law may create doubts on the commitment of the reserving state to the object and purpose of the Convention, and contribute to undermining the basis of International Law. It is the common interest of states that treaties to which they have freely chosen to become parties are respected, as to the object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Portugal therefore objects to this reservation.

This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and Qatar. ’

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers, with regard to the reservation made by Qatar relating to the Convention on the Rights of the child, that such reservation, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of this State to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contibute[lees: 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 therefore objects to this reservation.

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

‛ The Government of the Italian Republic has examined the reservation contained in the instrument of ratification by the Government of the State of Qatar, which enters a general reservation in respect of provisions that conflict with the provisions of the Islamic Sharia. The Government of the Italian Republic considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of Qatar under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Qatar to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become Parties should be respected, as to the objects and the purpose, by all Parties. The Government of the Italian Republic therefore objects to this reservation. This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Government of the Italian Republic and the State of Qatar. ’

The Government of Norway has examined the contents of the reservation … The Government of Norway considers that the reservation made by the State of Qatar, due to its unlimited scope and undefined character, is inadmissible under international law. For that reason, the Government of Norway objects to the reservation made by the State of Qatar.

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

Partial withdrawal of reservation:

Whereas the Government of the State of Qatar ratified the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child on 3 April 1995, and entered a general reservation concerning any of its provisions that are inconsistent with the Islamic sharia;

Whereas the Council of Ministers decided at its fourth ordinary meeting of 2009, held on 28 January 2009, to approve the partial withdrawal by the State of Qatar of its general reservation, which shall continue to apply in respect of the provisions of articles 2 and 14 of the Convention;

Now therefore We declare, by means of the present instrument, the partial withdrawal by the State of Qatar of its general reservation, which shall continue to apply in respect of the provisions of articles 2 and 14 of the Convention.

The Republic of Turkey reserves the right to interpret and to apply the provisions of Articles 17, 29 and 30 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in conformity with the work and spirit of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and of the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923. ’

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers, with regard to the reservation made by the Republic of Turkey relating to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, that such reservations, which seek 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. 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 therefore objects to this reservation.

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

The Convention on the Rights of the Child being a point of departure to guarantee child rights; taking into consideration the progressive character of the implementation of certain social, economic and cultural rights; as recognized in article 4 of the convention, the Government of the Kingdom of Swaziland would undertake the implementation of the right to free primary education to the maximum extent of available resources and expects to obtain the co-operation of the international Community for its full satisfaction as soon as possible.

Declaration concerning Article 1:

According to the legislation of the Principality of Liechtenstein children come of age with 20 years. However, the Liechtenstein law provides for the possibility to prolong or to shorten the duration of minority.’ ’

Reservation concerning Article 7:

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

Reservation concerning Article 10:

The Principality of Liechtenstein reserves the right to apply the Liechtenstein legislation according to which family reunification for certain categories of foreigners is not guaranteed. ’

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations made by the Government of Liechtenstein relating to the Articles 7 and 10 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the view that these reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State by invoking national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Liechtenstein 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 would like to recall that, according to paragraph 2 of Article 51 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Liechtenstein to the above Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Liechtenstein.

The Principality of Liechtenstein partially withdraws its reservation concerning article 10 of the Convention as contained in the annex of the instrument of accession of 18 December 1995, namely with regard to paragraph 2 of the article guaranteeing the right of the child to maintain personal relations and direct contacts with both parents.

Withdrawal of declaration concerning article 1 and withdrawal of reservation concerning article 7.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations made by the Government of Andorra relating to Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the view that these reservations which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State by invoking national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Andorra 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 would like to recall that, according to paragraph 2 of Article 51 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Andorra to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

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

The Principality of Andorra will apply the provisions of articles 7 and 8 of the Convention without prejudice to the provisions of part II, article 7 of the Constitution of the Principality of Andorra, concerning Andorran nationality.

Article 7 of the Constitution of Andorra provides that:

A Llei Qualificada shall determine the rules pertaining to the acquisition and loss of nationality and the legal consequences thereof. Acquisition or retention of a nationality other than Andorran nationality shall result in the loss of the latter in accordance with the conditions and limits established by law.

The Government of the Republic of Botswana enters a reservation with regard to the provisions of Article 1 of the Convention and does not consider itself bound by the same in so far as such may conflict with the Laws and Statutes of Botswana.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the contents of the reservation of the Government of Botswana …. According to the said reservation the Government of Botswana enters a reservation in respect of article 1 of the Convention by stating that it ‘does not consider itself bound by the same in so far as such may conflict with the laws and statutes of Botswana’. Given the central nature of article 1 of the Convention and the flexibility with regard to the national definition of majority already contained in article 1 of the Convention this may be seen as subjecting all provisions of the Convention to the provisions of national laws of Botswana. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of Botswana under the Convention by invoking practically all principles of national law may raise doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is 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 Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the said reservation.

This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and Botswana.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers, with regard to the reservation made by Botswana relating to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of 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. 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 therefore objects to this reservation.

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

The Government of the Italian Republic has examined the reservation contained in the instrument of [accession] by the Government of Botswana, which enters a general reservation in respect of any provisions that conflict with the internal law. The Government of the Italian Republic considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of Botswana under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Botswana to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become Parties should be respected, as to the objects and the purpose, by all Parties. The Government of the Italian Republic therefore objects to this reservation. This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Government of the Italian Republic and the Republic of Botswana.

Because of their unlimited scope and undefined character these reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law. Therefore, the Government of Denmark objects to these reservations. The Convention remains in force in its entirety between Botswana and Qatar respectively and Denmark.

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 Government of Denmark recommends the Governments of Botwana and Qatar to reconsider their reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Withdrawal of the reservation made upon accession.

The Government of Malaysia accepts the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child but expresses reservations with respect to articles 1, 2, 7, 13, 14, 15, 22, 28, 37, 40, paras. 3 and 4, 44 and 45 of the Convention and declares that the said provisions shall be applicable only if they are in conformity with the Constitution, national laws and national policies of the Government of Malaysia. ’

The Government of Portugal has examined the contents of the reservation made by Malaysia, according to which ‘the Government of Malaysia accepts the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child with respect to articles 1, 2, 7, 13, 14, 15, 22, 28, 37, 40, paras. 3 and 4, 44. and 45 of the Convention and declares that the said provisions shall be applicable only if they are in conformity with the constitution, national laws and national policies of the Government of Malaysia.’ A reservation by which a state limits its responsibilities under the Convention in a broad and vague manner and by invoking its internal law and national policies may raise doubts as to the commitment of that state to the objectives and purposes of the Convention, and contribute to undermining the basis of international law. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have freely chosen to become parties are respected, as to their objectives and purposes, by all parties.

The Government of Portugal, therefore objects to this reservation. This objection shall not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and Malaysia. ’

‛ The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the contents of the reservation of the Government of Malaysia contained in the instrument of ratification of the Convention of the Rights of the Child. According to the said reservation the Government of Malaysia enters a reservation in respect of all central provisions of the Convention that conflict with provisions of national laws and national policies of the Government of Malaysia. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of Malaysia under the Convention by invoking practically all principles of national law and national policy, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Malaysia to the object and purpose of the Convention and, moreover, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. It is 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 Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the said reservation. This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and Malaysia. ’

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers, with regard to the reservations made by Malaysia relating to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the central provisions of the Convention by invoking the Constitution, national laws and national policies, raise serious 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 therefore objects to these reservations.

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

The Government of Finland has examined the contents of the reservation made by the Government of Malaysia upon accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, by which it expresses that.

The reservation made by Malaysia covers several central provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The broad nature of the said reservation leaves open to what extent Malaysia commits itself to the Convention and to the fulfilment of its obligations under the Convention. In the view of the Government of Finland reservations of such comprehensive nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.

The Government of Finland also recalls that the said reservation is subject to the general principle of the observance of the treaties according to which a party may not invoke its internal law, much less its national policies, 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 fulfil the object and purpose of the treaty. Moreover, the internal legislation as well as the national policies are also subject to changes which might further expand the unknown effects of the reservation.

In its present formulation the reservation is clearly incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore inadmissible under article 51, paragraph 2, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to such reservation. The Government of Finland further notes that the reservation made by the Government of Malaysia is devoid of legal effect.

The Government of Finland recommends the Government of Malaysia to reconsider its reservation to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government of Ireland has examined the contents of the reservation of the Government of Malaysia contained in the instrument of ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child … Ireland considers that this reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and is therefore prohibited by article 51 (2) of the Convention. The Government of Ireland also considers that it contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the said reservation.

This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and Malaysia.

The Government of Sweden has examined the content of the reservation made by the Government of Malaysia upon accession … The Swedish Government considers that a reservation by which a State seeks to limit its responsibilities under the Convention by invoking principles of national laws and policies may cast doubts on the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention. Moreover, it may contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law.

It is a common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake legislative changes necessary to comply with such treaties. The Government of Sweden finds the unspecific reservation made by the Government of Malaysia in respect of central provisions of the Convention to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

In view of the above the Government of Sweden objects to the reservation made by the Government of Malaysia.

The Government of Norway has examined the contents of the reservation made by Malaysia upon accession …

The Government of Norway considers that the reservation made by the Government of Malaysia, due to its very broad scope and undefined character, is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, and thus not permitted under article 51, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Moreover, the Government of Norway considers that the monitoring system established under the Convention is not optional and that, accordingly, reservations with respect to articles 44 and 45 of the Convention are not permissible. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the reservation 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 Belgian Government has noted the content of the reservation expressed by the Government of Malaysia with respect to articles 1, 2, 7, 13, 14, 15, 22, 28, 37, 40, paragraphs 3 and 4, 44 and 45 of the Convention.

The Belgian Government believes that this reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and that, consequently, in accordance with article 51, paragraph 2, of the Convention, it is not permitted.

Moreover, the Permanent Representative of Belgium has the honour to communicate to the Secretary-General the position of Belgium concerning the reservation made by Qatar with respect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Belgium Government has noted the general reservation expressed by the Government of Qatar with respect to the provisions of the Convention.

The Belgian Government believes that this reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and that, consequently, in accordance with article 51, paragraph 2, of the Convention, it is not permitted.

Accordingly, Belgium wishes to be bound by the Convention in its entirety as regards the two above-mentioned States, which have expressed reservations prohibited by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted on 20 November 1989.

Moreover, as the 12-month period specified in article 20.5 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is not applicable to reservations which are null and void, Belgium's objection to such reservations is not subject to any particular time-limit.

The Government of Denmark has examined the reservation made by Malaysia upon [accession] to the Convention on the Rights of the Child … The reservation is covering multiple provisions, including 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. Consequently, the Government of Denmark considers the said reservation as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law.

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

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 Government of Denmark recommends the Government of Malaysia to reconsider its reservation to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the contents of the reservation of the Government of Singapore contained in the instrument of ratification of the Convention of the Rights of the Child. According to the said reservation (3) the Government of Singapore enters a general reservation in respect of any provisions of the Convention which may go beyond already existing national legislation.

Furthermore, the interpretation contained in the said reservation (2) contradicts the clear and unqualified content of articles 19 and 37 of the Convention. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that such a reservation, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of Singapore under the Convention by restricting them to already existing national legislation and by restricting the application of central articles of the Convention, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Singapore to the object and purpose of the Convention. It is 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 Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the said reservation.

This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and Singapore.

The Government of Belgium has noted the declarations and reservations expressed by Singapore concerning the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government considers that paragraph 2 of the declarations, concerning articles 19 and 37 of the Convention, and paragraph 3 of the reservations, concerning the constitutional limits upon the acceptance of the obligations contained in the Convention, are contrary to the purposes of the Convention and are consequently without effect under international law.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands having examined the declarations and reservations made by Singapore upon ints[lees: its] accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, considers paragraph 2 of the declarations as a reservation. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers in rspect[lees: respect] of paragraph 2 of the declarations and paragraph 3 of the reservations that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by invoking general principles of national law and the Constitution, 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 therefore objects to these reservations.

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

The Government of Sweden, having examined the declarations and reservations made by the Government of Singapore at the time of its accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, considers the declarations as reservations.

The Government of Sweden notes that paragraphs (1) (2) and (3) of the reservations are reservations of a general kind in respect of the provisions of the Convention which may be contrary to the Constitution, laws, customs, values and religions of Singapore.

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 51, 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 Convention on the Rights of the Child.

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 benefitting 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 instrument of ratification by the Government of the Republic of Kiribati contains reservations in respect of, article 24 paragraph (b, c, d, e & f), article 26 and article 28 paragraph (h, c & d), in accordance with Article 51 paragraph 1 of the Convention. ’

The Republic of Kiribati considers that a child's rights as defined in the Convention, in particular the rights defined in Articles 12–16 shall be exercised with respect for parental authority, in accordance with the 1-Kiribati customs and traditions regarding the place of the child within and outside the family

Objection

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the declaration made by the Government of Kiribati relating to the Articles 12–16 of the Convention on the rights of the child, and considers this declaration to be a reservation.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that this declaration, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Kiribati 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 would like to recall that, according to paragraph 2 of Article 51 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid declaration made by the Government of Kiribati to the Convention on the rights of the child. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Kiribati.

Declaration

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations made by the Government of Kiribati and wishes to declare the following.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the rights set down in the Articles 24, paragraph 1, (b, c, d, e and f), 26 and paragraph 1 (b, c, and d) to be of fundamental importance to the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands wishes to point out that a gradual fulfilment of the obligations set down in the said Articles are inherent to the said rights.

The Government of Portugal has examined the reservations made by the Government of the Republic of Kiribati at the time of this [accession to] the [above] Convention.

In the view of the Government of Portugal, reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention in a broad and vague manner and by invoking general principles of internal law, may create doubts on the commitments of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention, and contribute to undermining the basis of International Law. It is the common interest of States that treaties to which they have freely chosen to become parties are respected, as to the object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Portugal therefore objects to these reservations.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Convention between Portugal and Kiribati.

Austria has examined the contents of the reservations made by the Government of the Republic of Kiribati at the time of its [accession to] the Convention on the Rights of the Child […]

Austria is of the view that reservations, by which a state limits its responsibilities under the Convention in a general and unspecified manner, and by invoking general principles of internal law create doubts as to the commitment of the Republic of Kiribati with its obligations under the Convention, essential for the fulfilment of its object and purpose.

Given the general character of these reservations a final assessment as to their admissibility under international law cannot be made without further clarification.

Until the scope of the legal effects of these reservations is sufficiently specified by the Government of [Kiribati], 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 reservations in question are inadmissible to the extent as its application negatively affects the compliance by the Republic of Kiribati with its obligations under the Convention, essential for the fulfilment of its object and purpose.

Austria does not consider the reservations made by the Republic of Kiribati as admissible under the regime of art. 51 of the Convention and art. 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties unless the Republic of Kiribati, by providing additional information or through subsequent practice ensure that the reservations are 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 the Republic of Kiribati and Austria. ’

The Government of Sweden has examined the reservations made by the Government of Kiribati at the time of its accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child in respect of article 24 paragraphs b, c, d, e and f, article 26 and article 28 paragraphs b, c and d.

The Government of Sweden has further examined the declarations made by the Government of Kiribati at the time of its accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Government of Sweden considers the declarations relating to articles 12 to 16 of the Convention as reservations.

The Government of Sweden notes that the said reservations are reservations of a general kind in respect of the provisions of the Convention which may be contrary to the customs and traditions of Kiribati.

The Government of Sweden is of the view that these general reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Kiribati to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to article 51, 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.

The Government of Sweden is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by the Government of Kiribati, 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 Kiribati to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Kiribati and Sweden. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without Kiribati benefitting 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. ’

Withdrawal of the reservations made.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations made by the Government of Oman at the time of its accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that the reservation mentioned in paragraph 2 includes a reservation of a general kind in respect of the provisions of the Convention that may be contrary to Islamic law or the legislation in force in Oman.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the view that these reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State by invoking the general principles of national law, may raise doubts to the commitment of Oman to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to paragraph 2 of Article 51 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

It is 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 the Kingdom of the Netherlands is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by Oman, 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.

Furthermore the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the view that the reservations mentioned in paragraph 5 in respect of the articles 14en[lees: and]30 are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Oman to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Oman.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the reservations of the Government of Oman contained in its instrument of ratification to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany notes that the Government of Oman enters a reservation in respect of ‘all the provisions of the Convention that do not accord with Islamic Law or the legislation in force in the Sultanate..’ (paragraph 2). The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the view that such a general reservation may raise doubts as to the commitment of Oman to the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore objects to this reservation.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany further notes that the Government of Oman enters a reservation according to which ‘the provisions of the Convention should be applied within the limits imposed by the material resources available.’ (Paragraph 3). The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany understands this reservation not as a limitation of the responsibilities under the Convention but as a reiteration of its article 4.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany further notes the Government of Oman enters a reservation in respect of article 9, paragraph 4, of the Convention by adding ‘or to public safety’ (paragraph 1). The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany holds the view that by invoking general considerations of public safety the Government of Oman would unduly limit its responsibilities under article 9, paragraph 4, of the Convention.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is convinced that the responsibilities of the States Parties to the Convention under article 9, paragraph 4, can only be limited in the interest of the well-being of the child and therefore objects to this reservation.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany further notes that the Government of Oman enters a reservation in respect of freedom of religion in articles 14 and 30 of the Convention (paragraph 5). Article 14 of the Convention guarantees the right of the child to freedom of religion and article 30 provides for the right of a child belonging to a religious minority to profess and practise his or her religion in community with other member of his or her group. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that these rights are central to the object and purpose of the Convention. The reservation would thus raise doubts as to the commitment of Oman to the Convention's object and purpose. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to this reservation.

These objections do not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Oman and the Federal Republic of Germany.

The Government of Finland has examined the reservations made by the Government of Oman at the time of its accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government of Finland notes that Oman has entered inter alia a reservation ‘to all provisions of the Convention that do not accord with Islamic law or the legislation in force in the Sultanate’.

The Government of Finland is of the view that this general reservation raises doubts to the commitment of Oman to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that according to paragraph 2 of Article 51 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 Finland is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by Oman, 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 Finland therefore objects to the aforesaid general reservation made by the Government of Oman to the Convention on [the] Rights of the Child which is considered to be inadmissible.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Oman and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without Oman benefiting from this reservation.

The Government of Norway has examined the contents of the reservation made by the Government of Oman upon accession to the said Convention, which in its second paragraph reads as follows:

2. A reservation is entered to all the provisions of the Convention that do not accord with Islamic law or the legislation in force in the Sultanate and, in particular, to the provisions relating to adoption set forth in its article 21.

The Government of Norway considers that the reservation (2) made by the Government of Oman, due to its unlimited scope and undefined character, is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, and thus impermissible under Article 51, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Under well-established treaty law, a State party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform treaty obligations. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the reservations made by the Government of Oman.

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

The Government of Sweden has examined the reservations made by the Government of Oman at the time of its accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government of Sweden notes that the Government of Oman has entered inter alia a reservation of a general kind in respect of ‘all the provisions of the Convention that do not accord with Islamic law or the legislation in force in the Sultanate’.

The Government of Sweden is of the view that this general reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of Oman to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to Article 51, 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 Oman, 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 reservation made by the Government of Oman to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Oman and Sweden. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without Oman benefitting from this reservation.

Austria has examined the contents of the reservation made by the Sultanate of Oman at the time of its accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child which reads as follows.

‘…A reservation is entered to all the provisions of the Convention that do not accord with Islamic law or the legislation in force in the Sultanate and, in particular, to the provisions relating to adoption set forth in its article 21.’

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

According to paragraph 2 of article 51 of the Convention, a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

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 leglislative 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 Sultanate of Oman, 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 fulfilment of its object and purpose.

Therefore, Austria cannot consider the reservations made by the Government of the Sultanate of Oman as admissible unless the Government of the Sultanate of Oman, 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 the Sultanate of Oman and Austria.

Withdrawal of reservations to Articles 7, 9, 21 and 30 made upon accession.

Modification of the reservation to Article 14 (effective as of 14 January 2011): The Sultanate of Oman is not committed to the contents of Article (14) of the Convention, which gives the child the right to freedom of religion until he reaches the age of maturity.

Withdrawal of the following reservation made upon accession:

The provisions of the Convention should be applied within the limits imposed by the material resources available.

The Government of His Majesty the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam expresses its reservations on the provisions of the said Convention which may be contrary to the Constitution of Brunei Darussalam and to the beliefs and principles of Islam, the State religion, and without prejudice to the generality of the said reservations, in particular expresses its reservations on Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations made by the Government of his Majesty the Sultan and Yang di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam at the time of its [accession to] of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that the said reservations include reservations of a general kind in respect of the provisions of the Convention which may be contrary to the Constitution of Brunei Darussalam and to the beliefs and principles of Islam, the state religion.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the view that these reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State by invoking the Constitution and general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Brunei Darussalam to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to paragraph 2 of Article 51 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 Kingdom of the Netherlands is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by the Government of Brunei Darussalam, 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 the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of his Majesty the Sultan and Yang di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

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

The Government of Portugal has examined the contents of the reservations made by the Government of his Majesty the Sultan and Yan Dipertuan of Brunei Darussalam at the time of its [accession to] the [above] Convention.

The Government of Portugal notes that the said reservations include reservations of a general kind in respect of the provisions of the Convention which may be contrary to the Constitution of Brunei Darussalam and to the beliefs and principles of Islam, the State religion.

The Government of Portugal is of the view that these general reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Brunei Darussalam to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to paragraph 2 of article 51 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 Portugal is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by the Government of Brunei Darussalam, 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 Portugal therefore objects to the aforesaid general reservations made by the Government of His Majesty the Sultan and Yan Dipertuan of Brunei Darussalam to the [above] Convention.

The objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety to the Convention between Portugal and Brunei Darussalam.

The Government of Denmark has examined the reservations made by the Government of Brunei Darussalam upon accession on the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government of Denmark finds that the general reservation with reference to the Constitution of Brunei Darussalam and to the beliefs and principles of Islam is of unlimited scope and undefined character. Consequently, the Government of Denmark considers the said reservation as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law. Furthermore, it is a general principle of international law that national law may not be invoked as justification for failure to perform treaty obligations.

The Convention remains in force in its entirety between Brunei Darussalam and Denmark.

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 Government of Denmark recommends the Government of Brunei Darussalam to reconsider its reservation to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the reservations made by the Government of His Majesty the Sultan and Yan Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam at the time of its [accession to] the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany notes that the said reservations include reservations of a general kind in respect of the ‘provisions of the said Convention which may be contrary to the Constitution of Brunei Darussalam and to the beliefs and principles of Islam, the State religion…’

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the view that these general reservations may raise doubts as to the commitment of Brunei Darussalam to the object and purpose of the Convention.

It is the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned general reservations.

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

Austria has examined the reservations made by the Government of His Majesty the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam at the time of its [accession] to the Convention on the Rights of the Child,[…]

Austria is of the view that these general reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Brunei Darussalam to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to paragraph 2 of article 51 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

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 general reservations of the kind made by the Government of Brunei Darussalam, 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 law.

Given the general character of these reservations a final assessment as to their admissibility under international law cannot be made without further clarification.

Until the scope of the legal effects of those reservations are sufficiently specified by the Government of Brunei Darussalam, 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 reservations in question are inadmissible to the extent as its application negatively affects the compliance by the Government of Brunei Darussalam 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 Brunei Darussalam as admissible unless the Government of Brunei Darussalam, 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 Brunei Darussalam and Austria.

The Government of Norway has examined the contents of the reservations made by Brunei Darussalam upon [accession to] the said Convention, […]

The Government of Norway considers that the reservations made by the Government of Brunei Darussalam, due to its unlimited scope and undefined character, is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention and thus impermissable under article 51, paragraph 2 of this Convention. Under well-established treaty law, a State Party is not permitted to invoke internal law as a justification for its failure to perform treaty obligations. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the said reservations by the Government of Brunei Darussalam.

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

The Government of Ireland has examined the reservations made by the Government of His Majesty the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam at the time of its [accession to] the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government of Ireland notes that the said reservations include reservations of a general kind in respect of the provisions of the Convention which may be contrary to the Constitution of Brunei Darussalam and to the beliefs and principles of Islam, the state religion.

The Government of Ireland is of the view that these general reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Brunei Darussalam to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to paragraph 2 of article 51 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

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.

The Government of Ireland is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by the Government of Brunei Darussalam, 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 law.

The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid general reservations made by the Government of His Majesty The Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Convention between Brunei Darussalam and Ireland.

The Government of Finland has examined the reservations made by the Government of His Majesty the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam at the time of its accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government of Finland notes that the said reservations include reservations of a general kind in respect of the provisions of the Convention which may be contrary to the Constitution of Brunei Darussalam and to the beliefs and principles of Islam, the State religion.

The Government of Finland is of the view that these general reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Brunei Darussalam to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that according to paragraph 2 of Article 51 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

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.

The Government of Finland is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by the Government of Brunei Darussalam, 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 Finland therefore objects to the aforesaid general reservations made by the Government of His Majesty The Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam to the Convention on the Rights of the Child which are considered to be inadmissible.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Convention between Brunei Darussalam and Finland.

The Government of Sweden has examined the reservations made by the Government of Brunei Darussalam at the time of its accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government of Sweden notes that the said reservations include reservations of a general kind in respect of the provisions of the Convention which may be contrary to the Constitution of Brunei Darussalam and to the beliefs and principles of Islam, the State of religion.

The Government of Sweden is of the view that these general reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Brunei Darussalam to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to article 51, 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 Brunei Darussalam, 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 Brunei Darussalam to the Convention on the Rights of the child.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Brunei Darussalam and Sweden. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without Brunei Darussalam benefitting 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.

Withdrawal of its reservations to articles 20 (1), 20 (2) and 21 (a).

…entering reservations with respect to all such articles as are in conflict with the provisions of Islamic law.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations made by the Government of Saudi Arabia at the time of its accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that the said reservations relate to all such Articles of the Convention as are in conflict with the provision of Islamic Law. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the view that these reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State by invoking general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Saudi Arabia to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to paragraph 2 of Article 51 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by the Government of Saudi Arabia, 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 Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Saudi Arabia to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

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

The Government of Portugal has examined the contents of the reservations made by the Government of Saudi Arabia at the time of its accession to the [above] Convention.

The Government of Portugal notes that the said reservations relate to all such articles of the Convention as are in conflict with the provisions of Islamic Law.

The Government of Portugal is of the view that these reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Saudi Arabia to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to paragraph 2 of article 51 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

The Government of Portugal is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by the Government of Saudi Arabia, 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 Portugal therefore objects to the aforesaid general reservations made by the Government of Saudi Arabia to the [above] Convention.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Convention between Portugal and Saudi Arabia. ’

The Government of Denmark has examined the reservations made by the Government of Saudi Arabia upon accession on the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government of Denmark finds that the general reservation with reference to the provisions of Islamic law is of unlimited scope and undefined character. Consequently, the Government of Denmark considers the said reservation as being incompatible with the object and purposes of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law. Furthermore, it is a general principle of international law that national law may not be invoked as justification for failure to perform treaty obligations.

The Convention remains in force in its entirety between Saudi Arabia and Denmark.

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 Government of Denmark recommends the Government of Saudi Arabia to reconsider its reservation to the Convention on the rights of the Child. ’

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the reservations made by the Government of Saudi Arabia at the time of its accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany notes that the said reservations include reservations of a general kind ‘with respect to all such articles of the Convention as are in conflict with the provisions of Islamic law’.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the view that these reservations may raise doubts as to the commitment of Saudi Arabia to the object and purpose of the Convention.

It is the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties should be respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservations.

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

Austria has examined the reservations made by the Government of Saudi Arabia at the time of its accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child which read as follows:

‘… entering reservations with respect to all such articles as are in conflict with the provisions of Islamic law.’

Austria is of the view that these general reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Saudi Arabia to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to paragraph 2 of Article 51 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

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 general reservations of the kind made by the Government of Saudi Arabia, 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.

Given the general character of these reservations a final assessment as to their admissibility under international law cannot be made without further clarification.

Until the scope of the legal effects of these reservations 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 reservations in question are inadmissible to the extent as 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.

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

The Government of Ireland has examined the reservations made by the Government of Saudi Arabia at the time of its accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government of Ireland notes that the said reservations relate to all such Articles of the Convention as are in conflict with the provisions of Islamic law.

The Government of Ireland is of the view that these reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Saudi Arabia to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to paragraph 2 of article 51 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

The Government of Ireland is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by the Government of Saudi Arabia, 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 Ireland therefore objects to the aforesaid general reservations made by the Government of Saudi Arabia to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Convention between Saudi Arabia and Ireland. ’

The Government of Norway has examined the contents of the reservations made by the Government of Saudi Arabia upon accession to the said Convention, which reads as follows: ‘… entering reservations with respect to all such articles as are in conflict with the provisions of Islamic law.’

The Government of Norway considers that the reservation made by the Government of Saudi Arabia, due to its unlimited scope and undefined character, is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, and thus impermissable under article 51, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Under well-established treaty law, a State party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform treaty obligations. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the reservation made by the Government of Saudi Arabia.

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

The Government of Sweden has examined the reservations made by the Government of Saudi Arabia at the time of its accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government of Sweden notes that the said reservations relate to all such articles of the Convention as are in conflict with the provisions of Islamic law.

The Government of Sweden is of the view that these general reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Saudi Arabia to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to article 51, 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 Saudi Arabia, 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.

Sweden does not consider the reservations 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 reservations are compatible with the provisions essential for the implementation of the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid general reservations made by the Government of Saudi Arabia to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Pending clarification of the exact extent of the general reservations made by the Government of Saudi Arabia, Sweden considers Saudi Arabia bound by the Convention in its entirety. ’

The Government of Finland has examined the reservations made by the Government of Saudi Arabia at the time of its accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government of Finland notes that the said reservations relate to all such articles of the Convention as are in conflict with the provisions of Islamic law.

The Government of Finland is of the view that these general reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of Saudi Arabia to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to paragraph 2 of article 51 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

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

The Government of Finland therefore objects to the aforesaid general reservations made by the Government of Saudi Arabia to the Convention on the Rights of the Child which are considered to be inadmissible.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Convention between Saudi Arabia and Finland. ’

Switzerland refers expressly to the obligation of all States to apply the rules of international humanitarian law and national law to the extent that they ensure better protection and care of children who are affected by an armed conflict.’

The United Arab Emirates has reservations with respect to the provisions of articles 7, 14, 17 and 21 of the Convention, as set forth hereunder.

Article 7

The United Arab Emirates is of the view that the acquisition of nationality is an internal matter and one that is regulated and whose terms and conditions are established by national legislation.

Article 14

The United Arab Emirates shall be bound by the tenor of this article to the extent that it does not conflict with the principles and provisions of Islamic law.

Article 17

While the United Arab Emirates appreciates and respects the functions assigned to the mass media by the article, it shall be bound by its provisions in the light of the requirements of domestic statutes and laws and, in accordance with the recognition accorded them in the preamble to the Convention, in such a manner that the country's traditions and cultural values are not violated.

Article 21

Since, given its commitment to the principles of Islamic law, the United Arab Emirates does not permit the system of adoption, it has reservations with respect to this article and does not deem it necessary to be bound by its provisions.

De Regering van Oostenrijk heeft op 16-11-1998 het volgende bezwaar gemaakt tegen de door de Verenigde Arabische Emiraten bij de toetreding gemaakte voorbehouden:

Austria has examined the contents of the reservations made by the United Arab Emirates at the time of its accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Austria is of the view that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention in a general and unspecified manner or by invoking internal law creates doubts as to the commitment of the United Arab Emirates with its obligations under the Convention, essential for the fulfilment of its object and purpose.

According to paragraph 2 of article 51 of the Convention, a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

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 general reservations of the kind made by the United Arab Emirates contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law.

Given the general character of these reservations a final assessment as to their 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 fulfilment of its object and purpose.

Therefore, Austria cannot consider the reservations made by the Government of the United Arab Emirates as admissible unless the Government of the United Arab Emirates, by providing additional information or through subsequent practice, ensures that the reservations are 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 the United Arab Emirates and Austria.

De Regering van Italiëheeft tegen heeft[lees: heeft] op 02-04-1998 het volgende bezwaar gemaakt tegen de door de Verenigde Arabische Emiraten bij de toetreding gemaakte voorbehouden:

The Government of the Italian Republic has examined the reservations made by the United Arab Emirates at the time of its accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989.

The Government of [the] Italian Republic notes that reservations to articles 14, 17 and 21 are reservations of a general kind in respect of the provisions of the Convention which may be contrary to the principles of Islamic Law and domestic statutes and laws.

The Government of the Italian Republic is of the view that these general reservations raise doubts as to the commitment of the United Arab Emirates to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to Paragraph 2 of Article 51 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

The Government of the Italian Republic therefore objects to the above-mentioned general reservations.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Arab Emirates and the Italian Republic.

De Regering van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden heeft op 06-04-1998 het volgende bezwaar gemaakt tegen de door de Verenigde Arabische Emiraten bij de toetreding gemaakte voorbehouden:

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands examined the reservations made by the Government of the United Arab Emirates at the time of its accession to the Convention on the rights of the child and wishes to make the following declaration and objection.

Declaration in connection with the reservation with respect to article 7.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands assumes that the United Arab Emirates shall ensure the implementation of the rights mentioned in article 7, first paragraph, of the Convention on the rights of the child not only in accordance with its national law, but also with its obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field.

Objection in connection with the reservation with respect to article 14.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that the reservation with respect to article 14, which seeks to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State by invoking the general principles of national law, may raise doubts as to the commitment of Oman to the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, according to paragraph 2 of Article 51 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

It is 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 the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the view that the reservation in respect of article 14 is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of United Arab Emirates to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Arab Emirates. ’

‛ In accordance with the Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong signed on 19 December 1984, the Government of the United Kingdom will restore Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China with effect from 1 July 1997. The Government of the United Kingdom will continue to have international responsibility for Hong Kong until that date. Therefore, from that date the Government of the United Kingdom will cease to be responsible for the international rights and obligations arising from the application of the [above Conventions] to Hong Kong. ’

The Government of the People's Republic of China will assume responsibility for the international rights and obligations arising from the application of the [above Conventions] to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Domestically, the Convention does not apply directly. It establishes State obligations under international law that the Cook Islands fulfils in accordance with its national law.

Article 2, paragraph (1) does not necessarily imply the obligation of States automatically to guarantee foreigners the same rights as their nationals. The concept of non-discrimination on the basis of national origin should be understood as designed to rule out all arbitrary conduct but not differences in treatment based on objective and reasonable considerations, in accordance with the principles prevailing in democratic societies.

The Government of the Cook Islands will take the opportunity afforded by its accession to the Convention to initiate reforms in its domestic legislation relating to adoption that are in keeping with the spirit of the Convention and that it considers appropriate, in line with article 3 (2) of the Convention to ensure the wellbeing of the child. While all adoptions now permitted under Cook islands law are based on the principle of the best interests of the child being of paramount consideration and authorised by the High Court in accordance with applicable law and procedures and on the basis of all pertinent and reliable information, the principal aim of the planned measures will be to remove vestigial discrimination provisions governing adoptions found in legislation enacted with respect to the Cook Islands prior to the acquisition of sovereignty by the Cook Islands in order to ensure non-discriminatory adoption arrangements for all Cook Islands nationals. ’

Article 26

The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of Article 26 of the Convention with the reservation that these provisions shall not imply an independent entitlement of children to social security, including social insurance.

Article 37

The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of Article 37(c) of the Convention with the reservation that these provisions shall not prevent:

Article 40

The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of Article 40 of the Convention with the reservation that cases involving minor offences may be tried without the presence of legal assistance and that with respect to such offences the position remains that no provision is made in all cases for a review of the facts or of any measures imposed as a consequence. ’

Article 14

It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that Article 14 of the Convention is in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 19 December 1966 and that this Article shall include the freedom of a child to have or adopt a religion or belief of his or her choice as soon as the child is capable of making such choice in view of his or her age or maturity.

Article 22

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that whereas the Netherlands Antilles are not bound by the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 22 of the present Convention shall be interpreted as containing a reference only to such other international human rights or humanitarian instruments as are binding on the Kingdom of the Netherlands with respect to the Netherlands Antilles.

Article 38

With regard to Article 38 of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it is of the opinion that States should not be allowed to involve children directly or indirectly in hostilities and that the minimum age for the recruitment or incorporation of children in the armed forces should be above fifteen years. In times of armed conflict, provisions shall prevail that are most conducive to guaranteeing the protection of children under international law, as referred to in Article 41 of the Convention. ’

The Government of the Cook Islands reserves the right not to apply the provisions of article 2 in so far as those provisions may relate to the conferment of Cook Islands nationality, citizenship or permanent residency upon a child having regard to the Constitution and other legislation as may from time to time be in force in the Cook Islands.

With respect to article 10, the Government of the Cook Islands reserves the right to apply such legislation, in so far as it relates to the entry into, stay in and departure from the Cook Islands of those who do not have the right under the law of the Cook Islands to enter and remain in the Cook Islands, and to the acquisition and possession of citizenship, as it may deem necessary from time to time.

The Government of the Cook Islands accepts the general principles of article 37. In relation to the second sentence of paragraph (c), the obligation to separate children from adults in prison is accepted only to the extent that such imprisonment is considered by the responsible authorities to be feasible. The Cook Islands reserves the right not to apply article 37 in so far as those provisions require children who are detained to be accommodated separately from adults. ’

The following reservation was withdrawn:

The Government of the Cook Islands accepts the general principles of article 37. In relation to the second sentence of paragraph (c) the obligation to separate children from adults in prison is accepted only to the extent that such imprisonment is considered by the responsible authorities to be feasible. The Cook Islands reserves the right not to apply article 37 in so far as those provisions require children who are detained to be accommodated separately from adults.

Article 26

The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of Article 26 of the Convention with the reservation that these provisions shall not imply an independent entitlement of children to social security, including social insurance.

Article 37

The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of Article 37(c) of the Convention with the reservation that these provisions shall not prevent:

Article 40

The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of Article 40 of the Convention with the reservation that cases involving minor offences may be tried without the presence of legal assistance and that with respect to such offences the position remains that no provision is made in all cases for a review of the facts or of any measures imposed as a consequence. ’

Article 14

It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that Article 14 of the Convention is in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 19 December 1966 and that this Article shall include the freedom of a child to have or adopt a religion or belief of his or her choice as soon as the child is capable of making such choice in view of his age or maturity.

Article 22

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that whereas Aruba is not bound by the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 22 of the present Convention shall be interpreted as containing a reference only to such other international human rights or humanitarian instruments as are binding on the Kingdom of the Netherlands with respect to Aruba.

Article 38

With regard to Article 38 of the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it is of the opinion that States should not be allowed to involve children directly or indirectly in hostilities and that the minimum age for the recruitment or incorporation of children in the armed forces should be above fifteen years. In times of armed conflict, provisions shall prevail that are most conducive to guaranteeing the protection of children under international law, as referred to in Article 41 of the Convention. ’

With respect to Article 28 paragraph 1(a), the Government of Malaysia wishes to declare that in Malaysia, even though primary education is not compulsory and available free to all, primary education is available to everybody and Malaysia has achieved a high rate of enrolment for primary education i.e. at the rate of 98% enrolment. ’

[Modification of declaration]

With respect to article 28 paragraph 1 (a) of the Convention, the Government of Malaysia wishes to declare that with the amendment to the Education Act 1996 in the year 2002, primary education in Malaysia is made compulsory. In addition, the Government of Malaysia provides monetary aids and other forms of assistance to those who are eligible.

…, the Government of Malaysia, hereby withdraws its reservations in respect of articles 1, 13 and 15 of the said Convention …:

… ,following Malaysia's withdrawal of its reservations to articles 1, 13 and 15 of the said Convention … , the remaining reservations … made by Malaysia on the Twenty Third Day of March, in the year Nineteen Ninety Nine shall be modified and shall now read as follows:

Reservation:

The Government of Malaysia accepts the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child but expresses reservations with respect to articles 2, 7, 14, 28 paragraph 1 (a) and 37 of the Convention and declares that the said provisions shall be applicable only if they are in conformity with the Constitution, national laws and national policies of the Government of Malaysia.

[The Argentine Republic] wishes to refer to the report submitted by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which contains an addendum entitled ‘Overseas Dependent Territories and Crown Dependencies of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’ (CRC/C/41/Add.9).

In that connection, the Argentine Republic wishes to recall that by its note of 3 April 1995 it rejected the extension of the application of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands effected by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 7 September 1994.

The Government of Argentina rejects the designation of the Malvinas Islands as Overseas Dependent Territories of the United Kingdom or any other similar designation. Consequently, the Argentine Republic does not recognize the section concerning the Malvinas Islands contained in the report which the United Kingdom has submitted to the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC-C-41-Add.9) or any other document or instrument having a similar tenor that may derive from this alleged territorial extension.

The United Nations General Assembly has adopted resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25, in which it recognizes that a dispute exists concerning sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands and urges the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to continue negotiations with a view to resolving the dispute peacefully and definitively as soon as possible, assisted by the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who is to report to the General Assembly on the progress made.

The Argentine Republic reaffirms its rights of sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime spaces, which are an integral part of its national territory. ’

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rejects as unfounded the claims made by the Argentine Republic in its communication to the depositary of 5 October 2000. The Government of the United Kingdom recalls that in its declaration received by the depositary on 16 January 1996 it rejected the objection by the Argentine Republic to the extension by the United Kingdom of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to the Falkland Islands and to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Government of the United Kingdom has no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands and over South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and its consequential rights to apply the Convention with respect to those Territories.

The Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and has the honour to refer to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Secretary-General's communication of 9 April 2014, numbered C.N.185.2014.TREATIES-IV.11, relating to that treaty.

The Permanent Mission of Canada notes that this communication was made pursuant to the Secretary General's capacity as Depositary for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Permanent Mission of Canada notes the technical and administrative role of the Depositary, and that it is for States Parties to a treaty, not the Depositary, to make their own determination with respect to any legal issues raised by instruments circulated by a depositary.

In that context, the Permanent Mission of Canada notes that 'Palestine' does not meet the criteria of a state under international law and is not recognized by Canada as a state. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, the Permanent Mission of Canada wishes to note its position that in the context of the purported Palestinian accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 'Palestine' is not able to accede to this convention, and that the Convention on the Rights of the Child does not enter into force, or have an effect on Canada's treaty relations, with respect to the 'State of Palestine'.

The Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as Depositary, and has the honor to refer to depositary notification C.N.279.2014.TREATIES-IV.11, dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Canada regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, dated 20 November 1989.

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

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

The Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as depositary to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and refers to the communication by the depositary, dated 9 April 2014, regarding the Palestinian request to accede to this Convention (Reference number C.N.185.2014.TREATIES-IV.11).

'Palestine' does not satisfy the criteria for statehood under international law and lacks the legal capacity to join the aforesaid convention both under general international law and the terms of bilateral Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

The Government of Israel does not recognize 'Palestine' as a State, and wishes to place on record, for the sake of clarity, its position that it does not consider 'Palestine' a party to the Convention and regards the Palestinian request for accession as being without legal validity and without effect upon Israel's treaty relations under the Convention.

The Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as Depositary, and has the honor to refer to depositary notification C.N.297.2014.TREATIES-IV.11, dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Israel regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, dated 20 November 1989.

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

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

The Federal Republic of Somalia does not consider itself bound by Articles 14, 20, 21 of the above stated Convention and any other provisions of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia on October 1, 2015 to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Federal Republic of Germany considers that the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia regarding articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore objects to them.

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

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservations made by the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia with respect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservations regarding articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Furthermore, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that the Federal Republic of Somalia subjects application of the Convention to the beliefs and principles of Islam. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that such reservations, which seek to limit the responsibilities of the reserving State under the Convention by general reference to religious laws, raises doubts as to the commitment of that State to the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that according to Article 51, paragraph 2 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to these reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Somalia.

… The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia upon ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Republic of Latvia considers that Article 14 of the Convention forms the very basis of the Convention and thereof International Human Rights Law, thus no derogations from those obligations can be made. Moreover, the Republic of Latvia emphasises that para 3 of Article 14 contains the particular provisions related to the possible limitations of the right to manifest child's religious beliefs.Therefore, the Republic of Latvia considers that general reservation to Article 14 of the Convention cannot be considered in line with object and purpose of the Convention. Regarding the reservation to Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention that address the issues of the removal of child from family environment and matters of adoption, the Government of Latvia draws attention that Articles provide only general principles, leaving the issues of practical implementation up to the State Parties. Consequently, the reservation stipulating that the State Party to the Convention is not bound by Articles establishing the principle that the child can be removed from family environment and that the adoption shall be performed in the best interests of child, cannot be considered in line with aim and purpose of the Convention.

Moreover, the reservation subjecting any of provision of the Convention to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia does not allow evaluate to what extent the Federal Republic of Somalia considers itself bound by the provisions of the Convention.

Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia referring to para 2 of Article 51 of the Convention setting out that reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted, objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Latvia and the Federal Republic of Somalia. Thus, the Convention will become operative without the Federal Republic of Somalia benefiting from its reservation…

The Government of Austria has examined the reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia upon ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Austria considers that by referring to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia Somalia has made a reservation of a general and indeterminate scope. This reservation does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention. Austria therefore considers the reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and objects to it. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Austria and the Federal Republic of Somalia.

The Government of Sweden has examined the contents of the reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia, by which the Federal Republic of Somalia expresses that ‘The Federal Republic of Somalia does not consider itself bound by Articles 14, 20, 21 of the above stated Convention and any other provisions of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia.’

As regards to the reservations to Articles 14, 20 and any other provisions of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia, Sweden would like to state the following. Reservations by which a State Party limits its responsibilities under the Convention by not considering itself bound by certain articles and by invoking general references to national or religious law may cast doubts on the commitments of the reserving 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 also are respected, as to object and purpose, by all parties. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforementioned reservations. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and the Federal Republic of Somalia, without the Federal Republic of Somalia benefitting from its aforementioned reservations.

The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia concerning the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government of Finland notes that a general reference to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia raises doubts as to the commitment of the Federal Republic of Somalia to fulfill its obligations under the Convention. Such reservations are also subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.

In [the] view of the Government of Finland, the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. According to Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, such reservations shall not be permitted.

Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Finland and the Federal Republic of Somalia. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without the Federal Republic of Somalia benefitting from its reservations.

The Government of Romania has carefully examined the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and considers that they are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Moreover, having an undefined character and invoking general principles of its internal law, these reservations are contrary to the rules of the international law. Therefore, the Government of Romania objects to the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention in its entirety between the Romania and the Federal Republic of Somalia.

The Kingdom of Belgium has carefully examined the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia upon ratification on 1 October 2015 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Kingdom of Belgium considers that the reservations concerning in particular articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child are incompatible with the object and purpose of that Convention. These reservations effectively subordinate the application of all the provisions of the Convention to their compatibility with Islamic Sharia. The Kingdom of Belgium considers that such reservations seek to limit the responsibilities of the Federal Republic of Somalia under the Convention through a general reference to Islamic Sharia. The result is some uncertainty about the extent of the commitment of the Federal Republic of Somalia to the object and purpose of the Convention. The Kingdom of Belgium notes that, under article 51, paragraph 2, of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

Consequently, the Kingdom of Belgium registers an objection to the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia concerning articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and concerning any other provision of the Convention contrary to the general principles of Islamic Sharia. Belgium specifies that this objection does not constitute an impediment to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Federal Republic of Somalia.

The Government of the Czech Republic has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia on October 1, 2015 upon ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, according to which [t]he Federal Republic of Somalia does not consider itself bound by Articles 14, 20, 21 and any other provisions of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia.

The Government of the Czech Republic considers the reservation to Articles 14, 20 and 21 to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, since, in the opinion of the Government of the Czech Republic, these Articles form an essential element of the Convention and the general derogation from them impairs the raison d'être of the Convention. Moreover, the Government of the Czech Republic is of the view, that the reservation to any other provisions of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia has a general and indeterminate scope, since it does not sufficiently specify to what extent the Federal Republic of Somalia considers itself bound by the provisions of the Convention. Thus, this general reservation referring to religious laws also raises concern to which extent the Federal Republic of Somalia is committed to the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Czech Republic wishes to recall that, according to article 51 paragraph 2 of the Convention, as well as according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted and that such a reservation is null and void, and therefore devoid of any legal effect. Therefore, the Government of the Czech Republic objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Czech Republic and the Federal Republic of Somalia. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the Czech Republic and the Federal Republic of Somalia, without the Federal Republic of Somalia benefiting from its reservation.

The Swiss Federal Council has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia in ratifying the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The reservation subordinating all provisions of the Convention to the general principles of Islamic sharia makes it impossible to determine the extent to which the Federal Republic of Somalia accepts the obligations deriving from the Convention. The Federal Council therefore considers the reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

It also considers the reservation to articles 14 and 20, whereby the Federal Republic of Somalia generally seeks to avoid being bound by the important obligations contained therein, to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Federal Council recalls that, pursuant to article 51, paragraph 2, of the Convention, as well as article 19, paragraph (c), of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

Accordingly, the Swiss Federal Council objects to the reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention, in its entirety, between the Federal Republic of Somalia and Switzerland.

The Government of Hungary has examined the reservation to the Convention on the Rights of the Child made by the Federal Republic of Somalia at the time of its ratification of the Convention.

The reservation states that the Federal Republic of Somalia does not consider itself bound by the provisions of the Convention that are not in accordance with the General Principles of Islamic Sharia, and also states that it is not bound by Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention.

The Government of Hungary is of the opinion that by giving precedence to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia over the application of the provisions of the Convention, the Federal Republic of Somalia has made a reservation which leaves it unclear to what extent it feels bound by the obligations of the Convention and which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Articles 14, 20 and 21 address fundamental rights, and form an essential part of the Convention.

Therefore, any reservation to these Articles is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of Hungary recalls that according Article 51 (2) of the Convention and to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.

The Government of Hungary therefore objects to the aforesaid Reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Hungary and the Federal Republic of Somalia.

The Government of the Italian Republic has carefully examined the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia on October 1, 2015 to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Italian Republic considers that the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia regarding articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore objects to them.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Somalia and the Italian Republic.

The Republic of Bulgaria welcomes the ratification by the Federal Republic of Somalia of the Convention on the Rights of the Child on 1 October 2015.

The Republic of Bulgaria has carefully examined the reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia upon ratification of the Convention, which states that it does not consider itself bound by Articles 14, 20, 21 of the [...] Convention and any other provisions of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia.

The Republic of Bulgaria considers the reservation to articles 14, 20 and 21 incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, as it affects an essential element of the treaty. Furthermore, the Republic of Bulgaria notes that the aforementioned reservation subordinates the application of all the provisions of the Convention to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia, thus failing to define the extent to which the Federal Republic of Somalia considers itself bound by the provisions of the Convention.

The Republic of Bulgaria notes that according to article 51, paragraph 2 of the Convention a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

Therefore, the Republic of Bulgaria objects to the reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia concerning articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and concerning any other provision of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia.

However, the Republic of Bulgaria specifies that this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Bulgaria and the Federal Republic of Somalia.

The Government of the Republic of Poland has carefully examined the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia to the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by General Assembly of the United Nations on 20th of November 1989, […] upon its ratification on October 1, 2015.

The Government of the Republic of Poland considers that the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia regarding articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and any other provisions of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia Law are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore objects to them.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Somalia and the Republic of Poland.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the contents of the reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia upon ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the reservations made upon ratification regarding Articles 14, 20, and 21, are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

In addition, the reservation related to the Principles of the Islamic Sharia has a general and indeterminate scope and therefore does not allow States to assess to what extent Somalia has accepted the existing commitments to the Convention.·Furthermore, such general reservation contributes to undermining the basis of International Treaty Law.

Moreover, the Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that reservations by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention on the Rights of the Child by invoking the domestic law or/and the Sharia Law raise doubts as to the commitment of the reserving State to the object and purpose of the Convention, as the reservations are likely to deprive the provisions of the Convention of their effect and are contrary to the object and purpose thereof.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic recalls that according to Article 51, paragraph 2 of the Convention, as well as according to customary international 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 the Portuguese Republic thus objects to this reservation.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Portuguese Republic and the Federal Republic of Somalia.

The Government of the French Republic has examined the reservation made on 1 October 2015 by the Federal Republic of Somalia on the occasion of the deposit of its instrument of ratification to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, according to which the Federal Republic of Somalia does not consider itself bound by articles 14, 20 and 21 of the above-stated Convention and any other provisions of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia.

The French Republic considers that the reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia concerning articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

Consequently, the Government of the French Republic objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the French Republic and the Federal Republic of Somalia.

The Government of Norway welcomes the ratification by the Federal Republic of Somalia of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Government of Norway has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia upon ratification of the Convention, according to which the Federal Republic of Somalia ‘does not consider itself bound by Articles 14, 20, 21 of the above stated Convention and any other provisions of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia’.

The Government of Norway notes that the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia has made a general reservation in respect of the provisions of the Convention which may be contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia. The reservation is limiting the scope of the Convention, without identifying all the provisions in question, nor the extent of the derogation therefrom. The Government of Norway accordingly considers that the reservation raises serious doubts as to the full commitment of the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia to the object and purpose of the Convention, and undermines the basis of international treaty law. Moreover, insofar as the reservation relates to Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Convention, the Government of Norway considers that, in addition to being too vague, it affects essential elements of the treaty.

The Government of Norway therefore considers the reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia to be incompatible with the object and the purpose of the Convention.

The Government of Norway recalls that according to Article 51 paragraph 2 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. The Government of Norway therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and the Federal Republic of Somalia. The Convention thus becomes operative between the Kingdom of Norway and the Federal Republic of Somalia without the Federal Republic of Somalia benefiting from the aforesaid reservation.

The Republic of Moldova has carefully examined the reservations made by the Federal Government of Somalia on October 1, 2015 upon ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Republic of Moldova considers that the reservations regarding articles 14, 20 and 21 of the mentioned Convention are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention since these articles form an essential element of the Convention.

The Republic of Moldova recalls, that according to article 51, paragraph 2 of the Convention, as well as article 19, paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

Therefore, the Republic of Moldova objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Federal Republic of Somalia.

The objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Moldova and the Federal Republic of Somalia.

The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the Republic of Moldova and the Federal Republic of Somalia, without the Federal Republic of Somalia benefiting from its reservation.

Somalia has made the following reservation: The Federal Republic of Somalia does not consider itself bound by Articles 14, 20, 21 of the above stated Convention and any other provisions of the Convention contrary to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia.

The UK Government notes that a reservation which consists of a general reference to a system of law without specifying its contents does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the reserving State has accepted the obligations of the Convention. The UK Government therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation.