Partijen en gegevens

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that Article II, paragraph 2, of the 1972 Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, under which certain States are precluded from becoming parties to that Convention, is of a discriminatory character, and considers that, in accordance with the principle of the sovereign equality of States, the Convention should be open to participation by all interested States without discrimination or restriction.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics also deems it necessary to declare that the provisions of Article III of the 1972 Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, concerning the extension of its application to a territory for whose international relations a Contracting Party is responsible, are outdated and contrary to the Declaration of the General Assembly of the United Nations on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples (Resolution 1514(XV) of 14 December 1960), which proclaimed the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations.

The Government of Canada considers that the provisions of Rule 10, ‘Traffic Separation Schemes’, do not provide for compulsory use of the adopted schemes. The Government of Canada considers that the compulsory routing of ships is necessary to avoid collisions between ships and the resulting damage to the marine environment.

The Government of Canada notes that there are no exceptions to Rule 10(b), (c) and (h) for vessels engaged in fishing with nets, lines, trawls, trolling lines or other apparatus, or for vessels engaged in special operations such as survey, cable, buoy, pipeline or salvage operations, and that the exceptions in Rule 10(e) are not broad enough to adequately provide for vessels engaged in special operations. The Government of Canada considers that the practical application of Rule 10 would be complicated without realistic exceptions for fishing vessels and for vessels engaged in special operations.

The Government of Canada therefore does not consider that it is prohibited from providing for the compulsory use of traffic separation schemes or providing for such exceptions to Rule 10(b), (c), (e) and (h).

The Government of the German Democratic Republic considers that the provisions of Article 2 of the Convention are inconsistent with the principle that all States pursuing their policies in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations shall have the right to become parties to conventions affecting the interests of all States.

The position of the Government of the German Democratic Republic on Article 3 of the Convention, as far as the application of the Convention to colonial and other dependent territories is concerned, is governed by the provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (Res. 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960) proclaiming the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations. ’

[…] the acceptance of the Syrian Arab Republic to the regulations stipulated in the said Convention and its ratification do not imply in any way the recognition of Israel and do not lead to its engagement with it in any dealings that may be regulated by the said Convention.

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

It is understood that the ratification of the State of Kuwait of the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea and ‘Regulations’ attached thereto, done at London, on the 20th of October, 1972, does not in any way mean recognition of Israel by the State of Kuwait. Furthermore, no treaty relations will arise between the State of Kuwait and Israel.

The Instrument of Acceptance deposited by the Government of the State of Kuwait was accompanied by a statement of a political character in respect of Israel. In the view of the Government of Israel, this Convention is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. Moreover, the said declaration cannot in any way affect whatever obligations are binding upon Kuwait under general international law or under particular conventions.

The Government of Israel will, so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of the State of Kuwait an attitude of complete reciprocity.

The Presidential Council of the Hungarian People's Republic declares that Article 2, paragraph (2) of the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea of 1972, which does not allow some States to become a party to the Convention, is of discriminative nature. The Convention regulates such questions which concern all States and, therefore, under the principle of sovereign equality of States, it should be open for all States without any restriction and discrimination.

The Presidential Council of the Hungarian People's Republic also declares that Article 3 of the Convention is at variance with the UN General Assembly's Resolution No. 1514/XV of December 14, 1960 on the granting of independence to the colonial countries and peoples, which declared the necessity of the unconditional elimination of all forms of colonialism.

… that the provision of Article II, paragraph 2 of the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea — COLREC (London, 1972) prevents some States from becoming parties to the Convention. It is therefore of the opinion that the Convention should be opened to all the interested countries in keeping with the principle of equal sovereignty of States.

The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic deems it also necessary to declare that the provision of Article III of the Convention, dealing with the extension of its validity to territories for whose international relations the party to the Convention is responsible, is at variance with the United Nations General Assembly Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960) which proclaimed the necessity of putting a speedy and unconditional end to colonialism in all its forms and manifestations. ’

The Government of the Republic of Cuba considers that the provisions of Article II of the Convention, notwithstanding the fact that it deals with matters of interest for all States, are discriminatory in nature in that they withhold from a number of States the right of signature and accession, which is contrary to the principle of universality.

The Government of the Republic of Cuba considers that the application of the provisions contained in Article III of the Convention is at variance with the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples contained in resolution 1514(XV) adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 December 1960, which proclaims the necessity of putting a speedy and unconditional end to colonialism in all its forms and manifestations.

In accordance with relevant principles and rules of international law and to the extent defined by it, the Slovak Republic, as a successor State, born from the dissolution of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, considers itself bound, as of 1 Janury[lees: January] 1993, i.e. the date on which the Slovak Republic assumed responsibility for its international relations, by multilateral treaties to which the Czech and Slovak Republic was a party of 31 December 1992, including reservations and declaration made earlier by Czechoslovakia as well as objections by Czechoslovakia to reservations formulated by other treaty-parties.

[…] decided to adhere to the declaration made by the former Czechoslovak Republic:

[…] that the provision of article II, paragraph 2 of the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea – COLREG (London 1972) prevents some States from becoming parties to the Convention. It is therefore of the opinion that the Convention should be opened to all the interested countries in keeping with the principle of equal sovereignty of States.

The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic deems it also necessary to declare that the provision of article III of the Convention, dealing with the extension of its validity to territories for whose international relations the party to the Convention is responsible, is at variance with the United Nations General Assembly Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (resolution 1514(XV) of 14 December 1960) which proclaimed the necessity of putting a speedy and unconditional end to colonialism in all its forms and manifestations.

… the Argentine Government rejects the extension made by the United Kingdom of Great Brtitain and Northern Ireland of the application to the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands of the … Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended … and reaffrims the right of sovereignty of the Argentine Republic over those archipelagos which form part of its national territory.

The General Assembly of the United Nations has adopted resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12 and 39/6 which recognize the existence of a sovereignty dispute relating to the question of the Malvinas Islands, urging the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom to resume negotiations in order to find, as sson as possible, a peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute through the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations who is requested to inform the General Assembly on the progress made. Similarly, the General Assembly of the United Nations at its fortieth session adopted resolution 40/21 of 27 November 1985 which again urges both parties to resume the said negotiations.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland cannot accept the statement made by the Argentine Republic as regards the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have no doubt as to the United Kingdom sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and, accordingely, their right to extend the application of the Treaties to the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Equally, while noting the Argentine reference to the provisions of Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty signed at Washington on 1 December 1959, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have no doubt as to the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over the British Antarctic Territory, and to the right to extend the application of the treaties in question to that Territory.