Partijen en gegevens

‛ The Federal Republic of Germany in becoming a party to the Convention interprets and understands the provisions of this Convention as being of a nature not to prevent measures to be taken to protect the population of the regions concerned against floods nor to interfere with well-established rights the inhabitants of these regions may have. ’

‛ The German Democratic Republic takes notice of the statement made by the Federal Republic of Germany in respect of the application of the Convention's provisions to Berlin (West) and proceeds from the understanding that the application of the Convention's provisions to Berlin (West) is in keeping with the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971 according to which Berlin (West) is no constituent part of the Federal Republic of Germany and must not be governed by it. ’

… The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland wishes to point out that the German Democratic Republic, which is not a party to the Quadripartite Agreement, is not therefore competent to comment authoritatively on its provisions.

The reference to the Quadripartite Agreement which was contained in the statement referred to above is incomplete and therefore misleading. In this connection the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland wishes to draw attention to the fact that the provision of the Quadripartite Agreement referred to in the statement provides that ‘the ties between the Western Sectors of Berlin and the Federal Republic of Germany will be maintained and developed, taking into account that these sectors continue not to be a constituent part of the Federal Republic of Germany and not to be governed by it …

The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics deems it necessary to declare that the provisions of Article 9 of the Convention, restricting the possibility of some countries becoming parties to it, contradict the universally recognized principle of the sovereign equality of States.

The Argentine Republic rejects the extension by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the application of the ‘Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat’, signed at Ramsar on 2 February 1971 and amended by the Protocol of Paris of 3 December 1982, to the Malvinas [Falkland Islands], South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and reasserts its sovereignty over those islands, which are an integral part of its national territory.

The Argentine Republic draws attention to the fact that the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25 by which it recognizes the existence of a dispute over sovereignty and invites the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to enter into negotiations in order to find ways of achieving a peaceful and definitive solution to the problems still outstanding between the two countries, including all matters relating to the future of the Malvinas Islands, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The Argentine Republic also rejects the extension to the so-called ‘British Antarctic Territories’ and reasserts its legitimate rights to territorial sovereignty over the Argentinian Sector of Antarctica, which lies between the meridians of 25° and 74° of longitude West and between the parallel of 60° latitude South and the South Pole, and its rights in Antarctica as a riparian State under international law. These rights, well-established on historical and geographical grounds, are protected by Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty. ’

‛ The Government of the United Kingdom have no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, and South Sandwich Islands and the British Antarctic Territory, nor about their consequent right to extend the application of the above Convention to those territories. The right was exercised on 5 January 1976 in respect of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands. Accordingly the Government of the United Kingdom do not accept or regard as having any legal effect the declaration made by the Government of the Argentine Republic. At the same time, the Embassy wish to recall that no extension of the Convention to the British Antarctic Territory has been made. ’

The Socialist Republic of VietNam holds the view that the provisions of paragraph 2, Article 9 of this Convention are of a discriminatory character and limits the universality of the Convention; and that in accordance with the principle of equality of the sovereignty among States, the Convention should be opened for all States.

The Permanent Delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany to Unesco presents its compliments to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and has the honour to inform Unesco that, with regard to the continued application of treaties of the Federal Republic of Germany and the treatment of treaties of the German Democratic Republic following its accession to the Federal Republic of Germany with effect from 3 October 1990, the Treaty of 31 August 1990 between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic on the establishment of German unity (Unification Treaty) contains the following relevant provisions.

‛ In connexion with the declaration of 26 February 1976 by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the extension to Berlin (West) of the application of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat, dated 2 February 1971, the Soviet authorities state that they are not opposed to the application of the Convention to Berlin (West) in so far as and to the extent that this is permissible from the standpoint of the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971, under the terms of which West Berlin does not form an integral part of the Federal Republic of Germany and is not governed by it. ’

‛ In connection with this deposit of today of the instrument of acceptance to the above-mentioned amendments, I have the honour to declare on behalf of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany that the said amendments shall also apply to Berlin (West) with effect from the date on which they enter into force for the Federal Republic of Germany. ’

In accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, the wetland named ‘The Reserve of Ra’s al-Kor for natural life’ has been designated by the United Arab Emirates for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance established by virtue of this Convention.

In accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, the wetland named ‘Marais d'Hawizeh’ has been designated by Iraq for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance established by virtue of this Convention.

In accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, the wetland named’Socotra’ has been designated by Yemen for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance established by virtue of this Convention.

In accordance with Article 2 (1) of the Convention, the wetland named ‘Turkmenbashy Bay’ has been designated by Turkmenistan for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance established by virtue of this Convention.

In accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, the wetlands named ‘Xe Champhone Wetlands’ and ‘Beung Kiat Ngong Wetlands’ have been designated by this State for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance established by virtue of this Convention.

In accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, the wetlands named ‘Cleveland Dam’, ‘Chinhoyi Caves’, ‘Driefontein Grasslands’, ‘Lake Chivero and Manyame’, ‘Mana pools’, ‘Monavale Wetland’ and ‘Victoria Falls National Park’ have been designated by Zimbabwe for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance established by virtue of this Convention.

In accordance with Article 2(1) of the Convention, the wetlands named ‘Hawane Nature Reserve and Dam’, ‘Sand River’ and ‘Van Eck’ have been designated by this State for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance established by virtue of this Convention.

In accordance with Article 2 (1) of the Convention, the wetlands named ‘Bumdeling’, ‘Khotokha’ and ‘Phobjikha’ have been designated by this State for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance established by virtue of this Convention.

In accordance with Article 2 (1) of the Convention, the wetland named ‘No'oto – North Tarawa’ has been designated by Kiribati for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance established by virtue of this Convention.

In accordance with Article 2 (1) of the Convention, the wetland named ‘Qum Nature Reserve’ has been designated by Oman for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance established by virtue of this Convention.

In accordance with Article 2 (1) of the Convention, the wetland named ‘Mubarak Alkabeer Reserve’ has been designated by Kuwait for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance established by virtue of this Convention.

In accordance with Article 2 (1) of the Convention, the wetland named ‘Levera Wetland’ has been designated by Grenade for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance established by virtue of this Convention.

In accordance with Article 2 (1) of the Convention, the wetland named ‘Sudd wetland’ has been designated by South Sudan for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance established by virtue of this Convention.

In accordance with Article 2 (1) of the Convention, the wetlands named " Mundok Migratory Bird Reserve " and " Rason Migratory Bird Reseve " have been designated by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of International Importance established by virtue of this Convention.

[…] to register its strong objection against the extension by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory", of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, Ramsar, 2 February 1971 in respect of which the Director-General is the depositary.

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius considers that by extending the Convention to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory" on 8 September 1998, the United Kingdom purported to exercise sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago - a claim which is untenable under international law.

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius wishes to reiterate in emphatic terms that it does not recognize the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory". The fact that the Chagos Archipelago is, and has always been, part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, and that the United Kingdom has never had sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, has been authoritatively established by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019, on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965.

In this authoritative legal determination, the Court declared that the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius had not been lawfully completed in 1968, since the Chagos Archipelago had been unlawfully detached in 1965, in violation of the right of self-determination of peoples and the Charter of the United Nations, as applied and interpreted in accordance with UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, resolution 2066 (XX) of 16 December 1965, resolution 2232 (XXI) of 20 December 1966 and resolution 2357 (XXII) of 19 December 1967. Accordingly, it went on to hold that the United Kingdom's ongoing administration of the Chagos Archipelago, as the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory", was an internationally wrongful act, of a continuing nature, that engaged the State responsibility of the United Kingdom. It determined that the United Kingdom is under a legal obligation to terminate its unlawful colonial administration "as rapidly as possible".

The Court further determined that all UN Member States have an obligation to cooperate with the United Nations in facilitating the completion of the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius as rapidly as possible, including an obligation not to support the continuing wrongful conduct of the United Kingdom in maintaining its colonial administration in the Chagos Archipelago.

On 22 May 2019, the General Assembly, by an overwhelming majority of 116 votes to 6, adopted resolution 73/295. By this resolution, it endorsed the Court's Advisory Opinion, affirmed that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, and demanded that the United Kingdom terminate its unlawful colonial administration within a maximum of six months, that is, by no later than 22 November 2019. That deadline has now expired.

Moreover, the General Assembly in its resolution called upon Member States to "cooperate with the United Nations to ensure the completion of the decolonization of Mauritius as rapidly as possible" and to refrain from conduct that might impede or delay the completion of decolonization. It further called upon the United Nations and all its specialized agencies to recognize that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, to support the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius as rapidly as possible, and to refrain from impeding that process by recognizing the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory". Lastly, the resolution also called upon "all other international, regional and intergovernmental organizations, including those established by treaty," to recognize that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, to support its speedy decolonization, and to "refrain from impeding that process" by recognizing the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory".

The Republic of Mauritius has, over the years, consistently asserted, and hereby reasserts, its full sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. The Government of the Republic of Mauritius therefore unequivocally protests against the United Kingdom's extension of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory" and against the purported exercise by the United Kingdom of any sovereignty, rights or jurisdiction within the territory of the Republic of Mauritius.

For the above stated reasons, which arise from established principles of international law as authoritatively interpreted and applied by the International Court of Justice and endorsed by the UN General Assembly, the Government of the Republic of Mauritius does not recognize the United Kingdom's extension of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory", reserves all its rights in this regard, and calls upon all Contracting Parties to the Convention to reject the United Kingdom's extension of the Convention to the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territory".

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade of the Republic of Mauritius kindly requests that the present objection be duly recorded, circulated and registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations […].