Partijen en gegevens

The Australian Government does not accept any of the reservations contained […] in the instrument of ratification of the Republic of the Philippines.

The Norwegian Government does not accept the reservations made to the Convention by the Government of the Philippines at the time of ratification.

The Government of Brazil objects to the reservations made to the Convention by […] the Philippines, […]. The Brazilian Government considers the said reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The position taken by the Government of Brazil is founded on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 28 May 1951 and on the resolution adopted by the sixth session of the General Assembly on 12 January 1952, on reservations to multilateral conventions.

The Brazilian Government reserves the right to draw any such legal consequences as it may deem fit from its formal objection to the above-mentioned reservations.

The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles IV, VII, […], IX or […] of the Convention made by […] the Philippines, […].

As regards article IX: The Soviet Union does not consider as binding upon itself the provisions of Article IX which provides that disputes between the Contracting Parties with regard to the interpretation, application and implementation of the present Convention shall be referred for examination to the International Court at the request of any party to dispute, and declares that, as regards the International Court's jurisdiction in respect of disputes concerning the interpretation, application and implementation of the Convention, the Soviet Union will, as hitherto, maintain the position that in each particular case the agreement of all parties to the dispute is essential for the submission of any particular dispute to the International Court for decision.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that it is not in agreement with article XII of the Convention and considers that all the provisions of the Convention should extend to Non-Self-Governing Territories, including Trust Territories.

The Government of Ecuador is not in agreement with the reservations made to article […] and XII of the Convention by the Governments of […] and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and, therefore, they do not apply to Ecuador which accepted without any modifications the integral text of the Convention.

The Australian Government does not accept any of the reservations made at the time of signature of the Convention by […] the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Government of Belgium does not accept the reservations made by […] and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Government of Brazil objects to the reservations made to the Convention by […] and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Brazilian Government considers the said reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The position taken by the Government of Brazil is founded on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 28 May 1951 and on the resolution adopted by the sixth session of the General Assembly on 12 January 1952, on reservations to multilateral conventions.

The Brazilian Government reserves the right to draw any such legal consequences as it may deem fit from its formal objection to the above-mentioned reservations.

The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles […] XII of the Convention made by […] the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics […].

The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles […] XII of the Convention made by […] Mongolia, […].

With reference to Article IX of the Convention, the Government of India declares that, for the submission of any dispute in terms of this article to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the consent of all the parties to the dispute is required in each case.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it considers the reservations made by […], India, […] in respect of article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, opened for signature at Paris on 9 December 1948, to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore does not deem any State which has made or which will make such reservation a party to the Convention.

The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles […], IX or […] of the Convention made by […] India, […].

As regards article IX: The People's Republic of Bulgaria does not consider as binding upon itself the provisions of article IX which provides that disputes between the Contracting Parties with regard to the interpretation, application and implementation of the present Convention shall be referred for examination to the International Court at the request of any party to the dispute, and declares that, as regards the International Court's jurisdiction in respect of disputes concerning the interpretation, application and implementation of the Convention, the People's Republic of Bulgaria will, as hitherto, maintain the position that in each particular case the agreement of all parties to the dispute is essential for the submission of any particular dispute to the International Court of Justice for decision.

As regards article XII: The People's Republic of Bulgaria declares that it is not in agreement with article XII of the Convention and considers that all the provisions of the Convention should extend to Non-Self-Governing Territories, including Trust Territories.

As regards article IX: The People's Republic of Romania does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article IX, which provides that disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute, and declares that as regards the jurisdiction of the Court in disputes relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention, the People's Republic of Romania will adhere to the view which it has held up to the present, that in each particular case the agreement of all the parties to a dispute is required before it can be referred to the International Court of Justice for settlement.

As regards article XII: The People's Republic of Romania declares that it is not in agreement with article XII of the Convention, and considers that all the provisions of the Convention should apply to the Non-Self-Governing Territories, including the Trust Territories.

The Government of Ecuador does not accept the reservations made by the Governments […] and Romania to articles […] and XII of the Convention.

The Australian Government does not accept the reservations contained in the instruments of accession of the Governments of […] and Romania.

The Government of Ceylon does not accept the reservations made by Romania to the Convention.

The Government of Belgium does not accept the reservations made by […] Romania, […].

The Government of Brazil objects to the reservations made to the Convention by […] Romania, […]. The Brazilian Government considers the said reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The position taken by the Government of Brazil is founded on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 28 May 1951 and on the resolution adopted by the sixth session of the General Assembly on 12 January 1952, on reservations to multilateral conventions.

The Brazilian Government reserves the right to draw any such legal consequences as it may deem fit from its formal objection to the above-mentioned reservations.

The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles […] XII of the Convention made by […] Romania, […].

As regards article IX: Poland does not regard itself as bound by the provisions of this article since the agreement of all the parties to a dispute is a necessary condition in each specific case for submission to the International Court of Justice.

As regards article XII: Poland does not accept the provisions of this article, considering that the Convention should apply to Non-Self-Governing Territories, including Trust Territories.

The Government of Ecuador does not accept the reservations made by the Governments of Poland […] to articles […] and XII of the Convention.

The Australian Government does not accept the reservations contained in the instruments of accession of the Governments of Poland […].

The Government of Belgium does not accept the reservations made by […] Poland, […].

The Government of Brazil objects to the reservations made to the Convention by […] Poland, […]. The Brazilian Government considers the said reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The position taken by the Government of Brazil is founded on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 28 May 1951 and on the resolution adopted by the sixth session of the General Assembly on 12 January 1952, on reservations to multilateral conventions.

The Brazilian Government reserves the right to draw any such legal consequences as it may deem fit from its formal objection to the above-mentioned reservations.

The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles […] XII of the Convention made by […] Poland, […].

The Hungarian People's Republic reserves its rights with regard to the provisions of Article IX of the Convention which grant wide jurisdiction to the International Court at The Hague, and with regard to the provisions of Article XII which do not define the obligations of countries having colonies with regard to questions of colonial exploitation and to acts which might be described as genocide.

The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles […] XII of the Convention made by […] Hungary, […].

With reference to article VI, the Government of His Majesty the King considers that Moroccan courts and tribunals alone have jurisdiction with respect to acts of genocide committed within the territory of the Kingdom of Morocco.

The competence of international courts may be admitted exceptionally in cases with respect to which the Moroccan Government has given its specific agreement.

With reference to article IX, the Moroccan Government states that no dispute relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention can be brought before the International Court of Justice, without the prior agreement of the parties to the dispute.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it considers the reservations made by […] Morocco, […] in respect of article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, opened for signature at Paris on 9 December 1948, to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore does not deem any State which has made or which will make such reservation a party to the Convention.

The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles […], IX or […] of the Convention made by […] Morocco, […].

As regards article IX: The Soviet Union does not consider as binding upon itself the provisions of Article IX which provides that disputes between the Contracting Parties with regard to the interpretation, application and implementation of the present Convention shall be referred for examination to the International Court at the request of any party to dispute, and declares that, as regards the International Court's jurisdiction in respect of disputes concerning the interpretation, application and implementation of the Convention, the Soviet Union will, as hitherto, maintain the position that in each particular case the agreement of all parties to the dispute is essential for the submission of any particular dispute to the International Court for decision.

As regards Article IX: The People's Republic of Albania does not consider as binding upon itself the provisions of Article IX which provides that disputes between the Contracting Parties with regard to the interpretation, application and implementation of the Convention shall be referred for examination to the International Court at the request of any party to the dispute. The People's Republic of Albania declares that, as regards the International Court's jurisdiction in respect of disputes concerning the interpretation, application and implementation of the Convention, the People's Republic of Albania will, as hitherto, maintain the position that in each particular case the agreement of all parties to the dispute is essential for the submission of any particular dispute to the International Court for decision.

As regards Article XII: The People's Republic of Albania declares that it is not in Agreement with Article XII of the Convention and considers that all the provisions of the Convention should extend to non-self-governing territories, including trust territories.

The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles […] XII of the Convention made by Albania […].

Ad article IX: The Argentine Government reserves the right not to submit to the procedure laid down in this article any dispute relating directly or indirectly to the territories referred to in its reservation to article XII.

Ad article XII: If any other Contracting Party extends the application of the Convention to territories under the sovereignty of the Argentine Republic, this extension shall in no way affect the rights of the Republic.

The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles […] IX or XII of the Convention made by […] Argentina, […].

All territories for the conduct of whose foreign relations Australia is responsible.

… subject to the provisions of Article 47, paragraph 2, of the Constitution Act, 1919, concerning the impeachment of the President of the Republic of Finland.

The General Assembly,

Having examined the report of the Secretary-General regarding reservations to multilateral conventions,

Considering that certain reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide have been objected to by some States,

Considering that the International Law Commission is studying the whole subject of the law of treaties, including the question of reservations,

Considering that different views regarding reservations have been expressed during the fifth session of the General Assembly, and particularly in the Sixth Committee,

305th plenary meeting,

16 November 1950.

THE COURT IS OF OPINION,

In so far as concerns the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in the event of a State ratifying or acceding to the Convention subject to a reservation made either on ratification or on accession, or on signature followed by ratification,

On Question I:

by seven votes to five,

that a State which has made and maintained a reservation which has been objected to by one or more of the parties to the Convention but not by others, can be regarded as being a party to the Convention if the reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention; otherwise, that State cannot be regarded as being a party to the Convention.

On Question II:

by seven votes to five,

On Question III:

by seven votes to five,

The General Assembly,

Bearing in mind the provisions of its resolution 478 (V) of 16 November 1950, which (1) requested the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion regarding reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and (2) invited the International Law Commission to study the question of reservations to multilateral conventions,

Noting the Court's advisory opinion of 28 May 1951 and the Commission's report, both rendered pursuant to the said resolution,

360th plenary meeting,

12 January 1952.

With reference to article VI, notice is given that any proceedings to which Venezuela may be a party before an international penal tribunal would be invalid without Venezuela's prior express acceptance of the jurisdiction of such international tribunal.

With reference to article VII, notice is given that the laws in force in Venezuela do not permit the extradition of Venezuelan nationals.

With reference to article IX, the reservation is made that the submission of a dispute to the International Court of Justice shall be regarded as valid only when it takes place with Venezuela's approval, signified by the express conclusion of a prior agreement in each case.

The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles […], VII, […], IX or […] of the Convention made by […] Venezuela.

The Ukrainian SSR declares that it is not in agreement with article XII of the Convention and considers that all the provisions of the Convention should extend to Non-Self-Governing Territories, including Trust Territories.

The Government of Ecuador is not in agreement with the reservations made to article […] and XII of the Convention by the Governments of the […] the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic […] and, therefore, they do not apply to Ecuador which accepted without any modifications the integral text of the Convention.

The Australian Government does not accept any of the reservations made at the time of signature of the Convention by […] the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic […].

The Government of Belgium does not accept the reservations made by […] the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic […].

The Government of Brazil objects to the reservations made to the Convention by […] the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic […]. The Brazilian Government considers the said reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The position taken by the Government of Brazil is founded on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 28 May 1951 and on the resolution adopted by the sixth session of the General Assembly on 12 January 1952, on reservations to multilateral conventions.

The Brazilian Government reserves the right to draw any such legal consequences as it may deem fit from its formal objection to the above-mentioned reservations.

The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles […] XII of the Convention made by […] the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, […].

The Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria does not consider itself bound by article IX of the above-mentioned Convention, which confers on the International Court of Justice jurisdiction in all disputes relating to the said Convention.

The Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria declares that no provision of article VI of the said Convention shall be interpreted as depriving its tribunals of jurisdiction in cases of genocide or other acts enumerated in article III which have been committed in its territory or as conferring such jurisdiction on foreign tribunals.

International tribunals may, as an exceptional measure, be recognized as having jurisdiction in cases in which the Algerian Government has given its express approval.

The Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria declares that it does not accept the terms of article XII of the above-mentioned Convention and considers that all the provisions of the said Convention should apply to Non-Self-Governing Territories, including Trust Territories.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it considers the reservations made by […], Algeria, […] in respect of article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, opened for signature at Paris on 9 December 1948, to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore does not deem any State which has made or which will make such reservation a party to the Convention.

The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles […] IX or XII of the Convention made by […] Algeria, […].

The Byelorussian SSR declares that it is not in agreement with article XII of the Convention and considers that all the provisions of the Convention should extend to non-self-governing territories, including trust territories.

The Government of Ecuador is not in agreement with the reservations made to article […] and XII of the Convention by the Governments of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, […] and, therefore, they do not apply to Ecuador which accepted without any modifications the integral text of the Convention.

The Australian Government does not accept any of the reservations made at the time of signature of the Convention by the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, […].

The Government of Belgium does not accept the reservations made by […] Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, […].

The Government of Brazil objects to the reservations made to the Convention by […] the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, […]. The Brazilian Government considers the said reservations as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The position taken by the Government of Brazil is founded on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 28 May 1951 and on the resolution adopted by the sixth session of the General Assembly on 12 January 1952, on reservations to multilateral conventions.

The Brazilian Government reserves the right to draw any such legal consequences as it may deem fit from its formal objection to the above-mentioned reservations.

The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles […] XII of the Convention made by […] the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, […].

As regards article IX: The Soviet Union does not consider as binding upon itself the provisions of Article IX which provides that disputes between the Contracting Parties with regard to the interpretation, application and implementation of the present Convention shall be referred for examination to the International Court at the request of any party to dispute, and declares that, as regards the International Court's jurisdiction in respect of disputes concerning the interpretation, application and implementation of the Convention, the Soviet Union will, as hitherto, maintain the position that in each particular case the agreement of all parties to the dispute is essential for the submission of any particular dispute to the International Court for decision.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands declares that it considers the reservations made by Albania, Algeria, Bulgaria, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, India, Morocco, Poland, Rumania, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in respect of Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, opened for signature at Paris on 9 December 1948, to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore does not deem any State which has made or which will make such reservation a party to the Convention.

The Government of the Mongolian People's Republic deems it necessary to state that the Mongolian People's Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article IX which stipulates that disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or implementation of the present Convention shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute and declares that the Mongolian People's Republic will maintain the position that in each particular case the consent of all contending parties is essential for the submission of any particular dispute to the International Court of Justice.

The Government of the Mongolian People's Republic declares that it is not in a position to agree with article XII of the Convention and considers that the provisions of the said article should be extended to non-self-governing territories, including trust territories.

The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles […] XII of the Convention made by […] Mongolia, […].

The Government of the Mongolian People's Republic deems it appropriate to draw attention to the discriminatory character of article XI of the Convention, under the terms of which a number of States are precluded from acceding to the Convention and declares that the Convention deals with matters which affect the interests of all States and it should, therefore, be open for accession by all States.

in respect of the whole of Article IX (jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice).

Withdrawal of the reservation in respect of the whole of article IX (Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice).

The Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations to articles IV, VII, VIII, IX or XII of the Convention made by Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Bulgaria, Burma, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, India, Mongolia, Morocco, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Spain, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or Venezuela.

[The Government of Argentina makes a] formal objection to the declaration of territorial extension issued by the United Kingdom with regard to the Malvinas Islands (and dependencies), which that country is illegally occupying and refers to as the ‘Falkland Islands’. The Argentine Republic rejects and considers null and void the [said declaration] of territorial extension.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have no doubt as to their right, by notification to the Depositary under the relevant provisions of the above-mentioned Convention, to extend the application of the Convention in question to the Falkland Islands or to the Falkland Islands Dependencies, as the case may be.

For this reason alone, the Government of the United Kingdom are unable to regard the Argentine [communication] under reference as having any legal effect.

The ratification to the said Convention by the Taiwan local authorities on 19 July 1951 in the name of China is illegal and therefore null and void.

The People's Republic of China does not consider itself bound by article IX of the said Convention.

[…] The Government of the United Kingdom have however consistently stated that they are unable to accept reservations to this article […].

[…]

The reservation made by the Government of the People's Republic of China to Article 9 of the Convention will also apply to the Macao Special Administrative Region.

[…]

Reservations

Understandings

With respect to reservation (2); 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.

The Government of Ireland is unable to accept the second reservation made by the United States of America on the occasion of its ratification of the [said] Convention on the grounds that as a generally accepted rule of international law a party to an international agreement may not, by invoking the terms of its internal law, purport to override the provisions of the Agreement.

With regard to reservation (2); In the view of the Government of Norway this reservation is subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty.

The Government of the United Kingdom have consistently stated that they are unable to accept reservations to Article IX. Accordingly, in conformity with the attitude adopted by them in previous cases, the Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the first reservation entered by the United States.

The Government of the United Kingdom object to the second reservation entered by the United States of America. It creates uncertainty as to the extent of the obligations which the Government of the United States of America is prepared to assume with regard to the Convention.

With regard to reservation (2); The Government of Sweden is of view that a State party to the Convention may not invoke the provisions of its national legislation, including the Constitution, to justify that it does not fulfil its obligation under the Convention and therefore objects to the reservation.

This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and the United States of America.

The Government of Denmark has taken note of the reservations made by the United States of America when ratifying the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. According to reservation No. 2 ‘nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States’. In view of the Government of Denmark this reservation is subject to the General principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty.

As concerns the first reservation, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls its declaration, made on 20 June 1966 on the occasion of the accession of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the Convention (circulated 21 July 1966 with reference C.N.99.1966. Treaties-1), stating that in its opinion the reservations in respect of article IX of the Convention, made at the time by a number of states, were incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, and that the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands did not consider states making such reservations parties to the Convention. Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not consider the United States of America a party to the Convention. Similarly, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not consider parties to the Convention other states which have made such reservation, i.e., in addition to the states mentioned in the aforementioned declaration, the People's Republic of China, Democratic Yemen, the German Democratic Republic, the Mongolian People's Republic, the Philippines, Rwanda, Spain, Venezuela, and Vietnam. On the other hand, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does consider parties to the Convention those states that have since withdrawn their reservations, i.e. the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

As the Convention may come into force between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United States of America as a result of the latter withdrawing its reservation in respect of article IX, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands deems it useful to express the following position on the second reservation of the United States of America:

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to this reservation on the ground that it creates uncertainty as to the extent of the obligations the Government of the United States of America is prepared to assume with regard to the Convention. Moreover, any failure by the United States of America to act upon the obligations contained in the Convention on the ground that such action would be prohibited by the constitution of the United States would be contrary to the generally accepted rule of international law, as laid down in article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties (Vienna, 23 May 1969).

The Government of the Republic of Italy objects to the second reservation entered by the United States of America. It creates uncertainty as to the extent of the obligations which the Government of the United States of America is prepared to assume with regard to the Convention.

With regard to reservation (2); Spain interprets the reservation entered by the United States of America to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted by the General assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948, which states that ‘nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States’, to mean that legislation or other action by the United States of America will continue to be in accordance with the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has taken note of the declarations made under the heading ‘Reservations’ by the Government of the United States of America upon ratification of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany interprets paragraph (2) of the said declarations as a reference to article V of the Convention and therefore as not in any way affecting the obligations of the United States of America as a State Party to the Convention.

The Government of the Hellenic Republic cannot accept the first reservation entered by the United States of America upon ratifying the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, for it considers such a reservation to be incompatible with the Convention.

As regards the second reservation entered by the United States of America, the Government of the Hellenic Republic considers that, in accordance with the generally recognized principles of international law, a party to an international convention may not invoke its domestic legislation as a reason to avoid honouring its obligations under that Convention.

The Government of Mexico believes that the reservation made by the United States Government to Article IX of the aforesaid Convention should be considered invalid because it is not in keeping with the object and purpose of the Convention, nor with the principle governing the interpretation of treaties whereby no State can invoke provisions of its domestic law as a reason for not complying with a treaty.

If the aforementioned reservation were applied, it would give rise to a situation of uncertainty as to the scope of the obligations which the United States Government would assume with respect to the Convention.

Mexico's objection to the reservation in question should not be interpreted as preventing the entry into force of the 1948 Convention between the [Mexican] Government and the United States Government.

With regard to reservation (2); The Estonian Government objects to this reservation on the grounds that it creates uncertainty, as to the extent of the obligations the Government of the United States of America is prepared to assume with regard to the Convention.

According to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties no party may invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for failure to perform a treaty.

The German Democratic Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article IX of the Convention, which provides that disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention are, at the request of any of the parties to the dispute, to be submitted to the International Court of Justice, and declares that, as regards the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in respect of disputes relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention, the German Democratic Republic takes the position that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to the dispute is necessary for the submission of a given dispute to the International Court of Justice for decision.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have consistenly stated that they are unable to accept reservations in respect of Article IX of the said Convention; in their view this is not the kind of reservation which intending parties to the Convention have the right to make.

The German Democratic Republic declares that it cannot accept the provisions of article XII of the Convention and considers that the Convention should also extend to Non-Self-Governing Territories, including Trust Territories.

The German Democratic Republic deems it necessary to state that article XI of the Convention deprives a number of States of the opportunity to become Parties to the Convention. As the Convention regulates matters affecting the interests of all States, it should be open to participation by all States whose policies are guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

With regard to the application to Berlin (West) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and in accordance with the Quadripartite Agreement concluded on September 3, 1971 between the governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the United States of America and of the French Republic, the German Democratic Republic delares that Berlin (West) is no constituent part of the Federal Republic of Germany and must not be governed by it. For this reason the statement of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, according to which this Convention also applies to the ‘Land Berlin’, is in contradiction to the Quadripartite Agreement and cannot produce any validity.

The Governments of France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America wish to bring to the attention of the States Parties to the Convention that the extension of the Convention to the Western Sectors of Berlin received the prior authorisation, under established procedures, of the authorities of France, the United Kingdom and the United States on the basis of their supreme authority in those Sectors.

In a communication to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which is an integral part (Annex IV A) of the Quadripartite Agreement of the 3rd of September 1971 the Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States reaffirmed that, provided matters of security and status are not affected, international agreements and arrangements entered into by the Federal Republic of Germany may be extended to the Western Sectors of Berlin. For its part, the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, in a communication to the Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States which is similarly an integral part (Annex IV B) of the Quadripartite Agreement of the 3rd of September 1971, affirmed that it would raise no objection to such extension.

Accordingly, the application of the Convention to the Western Sectors of Berlin continues in full force and effect.

The Government of de the[lees: the] Federal Republic of Germany shares the position set out in the Note of the Three Powers. The extension of the Convention to Berlin (West) continues in full force and effect.

The Soviet Union shares the view expressed in the communications from the German Democratic Republic concerning the action by the Federal Republic of Germany in extending to ‘Land Berlin’ the Convention of 9 December 1948 on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,…. Berlin (West) has never been a ‘Land of the Federal Republic of Germany’, does not form part of the Federal Republic of Germany and is not governed by it. This fact was reaffirmed and given legal effect in the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971. The declarations by the Federal Republic of Germany extending international agreements to ‘Land Berlin’ are regarded and will continue to be regarded by the Soviet Union as having no legal effect.

In a communication to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which is an intergral part (Annex IV A) of the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971, the Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States confirmed that provided that matters of security and status are not affected and provided that extension is specified in each case, international agreements and arrangements entered into by the Federal Republic of Germany may be extended to the Western Sectors of Berlin in accordance with established procedures. For its part, the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in a communication to the Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States which is similarly an integral part (Annex IV B) of the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971, affirmed that it would raise no objection to such extension.

The Quadripartite Agreement does not impose any requirement regarding terminology to be used by the Federal Republic of Germany when extending to the Western Sectors of Berlin such international agreements or arrangements nor, of course does the Quadripartite Agreement affect terminology used in the past.

In any case, the use by the Federal Republic of Germany of the terminology mentioned in the [Note] under reference can in no way affect quadripartite agreements or decisions relating to Berlin.

Consequently, the validity of the Berlin Declaration made by the Federal Republic of Germany is unaffected by the use of this terminology and the application to the Western Sectors of Berlin of the [instrument] mentioned in the above listed [document] continues in full force and effect.

The Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States wish to point out that the [State whose communication is reported in the above mentioned Note is not a party] to the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971, which was concluded in Berlin by the Governments of the French Republic, the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America, and [is] not therefore competent to comment authoritatively on its provisions.

The Quadripartite Agreement does not impose any requirement regarding terminology to be used by the Federal Republic of Germany when extending to the Western Sectors of Berlin treaties or agreements to which it has become a party nor, of course, does the Agreement affect terminology used in the past.

In any case the use by the Federal Republic of Germany of the terminology mentioned in the [communication] under reference can in no way affect quadripartite agreements of decisions relating to Berlin.

Consequently the validity of the Berlin Declaration made by the Federal Republic of Germany is unaffected by the use of this terminology.

The Government of France, the United Kingdom and the United States do not consider it necessary to respond to any further communications of a similar nature by States which are not signatories to the Quadripartite Agreement. This should not be taken to imply any change in the position of those Governments in this matter.

By their Notes of 8 July 1975, disseminated by Circular Notes … C.N.188.1975.TREATIES-2 of 13 August 1975, the Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States answered the assertions made in the communications referred to above. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, on the basis of the legal situation set out in the Notes of the Three Powers wishes to confirm that the application in Berlin (West) of the above-mentioned [instrument] extended by it under the established procedures continues in full force and effect,

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany wishes to point out that the absence of a response to further communications of a similar nature should not be taken to imply any change of its position in this matter.

The Permanent Mission of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the United Nations …, considers it necessary to confirm the position on the question set forth in the Permanent Mission's note No. 491 of 11 September 1974. The declarations by the Federal Republic of Germany extending the above-mentioned [Convention] to ‘Land Berlin’ will continue to be regarded by the Soviet side as having no legal effect.

… the Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservation entered by the Republic of Rwanda against Article IX of the Convention…

I, […], Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, hereby declare that the Government of the Republic of Rwanda, after having examined Rwanda's reservation to article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted at New York on 9 December 1948, and, in accordance with Act No. 65/2007 of 31 December 2007 which provides for the withdrawal of the said reservation, has withdrawn the reservation.

The Government of Democratie Kampuchea, as a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genoice, considers that the signing of that Convention by the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam has no legal force, because it is no more than a cynical, macabre charade intended to camouflage the foul crimes of genocide committed by the 250,000 soldiers of the Vietnamese invasion army in Kampuchea. It is an odious insult to the memory of the more than 2,500,000 Kampucheans who have been massacred by these same Vietnamese armed forces using conventional weapons, chemical weapons and the weapon of famine, created deliberately by them for the purpose of eliminating all national resistance at its source.

It is also a gross insult to hundreds of thousands of Laotians who have been massacred or compelled to take refuge abroad since the occupation of Laos by the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, to the Hmong national minority in Laos, exterminated by Vietnamese conventional and chemical weapons and, finally, to over a million Vietnamese ‘boat people’ who died at sea or sought refuge abroad in their flight to escape the repression carried out in Viet Nam by the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam.

This shameless accession by the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam violates and discredits the noble principles and ideals of the United Nations and jeopardizes the prestige and moral authority of our world Organization. It represents an arrogant challenge to the international community, which is well aware of these crimes of genocide committed by the Vietnamese army in Kampuchea, has constantly denounced and condemned them since 25 December 1978, the date on which the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea began, and demands that these Vietnamese crimes of genocide be brought to an end by the total withdrawal of the Vietnamese forces from Kampuchea and the restoration of the inalienable right of the people of Kampuchea to decide its own destiny without any foreign interference, as provided in United Nations resolutions 34/22, 35/6 adn 36/5.

With regard to statements made by Viet Nam concerning articles IX and XII and […]: The Government of the United Kingdom have […] consistently stated that they are unable to accept reser-vations to [article IX]. Likewise, in conformity with the attitude adopted by them in previous

cases the Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservation entered by Viet Nam relating to article XII.

In acceding to this Convention, the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen does not consider itself bound by article IX of the Convention, which provides that disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute. It declares that the competence of the International Court of Justice with respect to disputes concerning the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention shall in each case be subject to the express consent of all parties to the dispute.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have consistently stated that they are unable to accept reservations in respect of Article IX of the said Convention; in their view this is not the kind of reservation which intending parties to the Convention have the right to make.

Accordingly the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland do not accept the reservation entered by the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen against Article IX of the Convention.

With reference to article IX of the Convention the Government of the State of Bahrain declares that, for the submission of any dispute in terms of this article to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the express consent of all the parties to the dispute is required in each case.

Moreover, the accession by the State of Bahrain to the said Convention shall in no way constitute recognition of Israel or be a cause for the establishment of any relations of any kind therewith.

The Government of the State of Israel has noted that the instrument of accession of Bahrain to the [said] Convention contains a declaration in respect of Israel.

In view of the Government of the State of Israel, such declaration, which is explicitly of a political character, is incompatible with the purpose and objectives of this Convention and cannot in any way affect whatever obligations are binding upon Bahrain under general International Law or under particular Conventions.

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

Considering the fact that the replacement of sovereignty on the part of the territory of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia previously comprising the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was carried out contrary to the rules of international law, the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia herewith states that it does not consider the so-called Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, but does consider that the so-called Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is bound by the obligation to respect the norms on preventing and punishing the crime of genocide in accordance with general international law irrespective of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia does not consider itself bound by Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and, therefore, before any dispute to which the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a party may be validly submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this Article, the specific and explicit consent of the FRY is required in each case.

The Government of the Republic of Croatia objects to the deposition of the instrument of accession of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, due to the fact that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is already bound by the Convention since its emergence as one of the five equal successor states to the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

This fact was confirmed by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in its Declaration of 27 April 1992, as communicated to the Secretary-General (UN doc. A/46/915). Notwithstanding the political reasoning behind it, in its 1992 Declaration the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia stated that it ‘shall strictly abide by all the commitments that the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia assumed internationally’.

In this regard the Republic of Croatia notes in particular the decision of the International Court of Justice in its Judgement of 11 July 1996 that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ‘was bound by provisions of the [Genocide] Convention on the date of the filing of [the Application by Bosnia and Herzegovina], namely on 20 March 1993’ (ICJ Reports 1996, p. 595, at para. 17).

The Government of the Republic of Croatia further objects to the reservation made by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in respect of Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and considers it to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Republic of Croatia considers the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to be fully in force and applicable between the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including Article IX.

The Government of the Republic of Croatia deems that neither the purported way of becoming a party to the Genocide Convention ex nunc by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, nor its purported reservation, have any legal effect regarding the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with respect to the pending proceedings initiated before the International Court of Justice by the Republic of Croatia against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia pursuant to the Genocide Convention.

On 29 June 2001, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of Slovenia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia signed an ‘Agreement on Succession Issues’ in which these States, among other things, declare that they are ‘in sovereign equality the five successor States to the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’. A copy of the Agreement is enclosed. [Copy not reproduced herein.] For this reason, there can be no question of ‘accession’, but rather there is an issue of succession. This, in itself, implies that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has effectively succeeded the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as of 27 April 1992 (the date of the proclamation of the FRY) as a Party to the Genocide Convention.

Apart from that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia upon its proclamation on 27 April 1992 declared – and communicated this to the Secretary-General that it would ‘strictly abide by all the commitments that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia assumed internationally’ (UN Doc. A/46/915).

For these two reasons it is not possible for the FRY to effectively lay down a reservation with regards to part of the Genocide Convention (i.e. Article IX of the Convention) several years after 27 April 1992, the day on which FRY became bound to the Genocide Convention in its entirety. Bosnia and Herzegovina refers to Articles 2 (1) (d) and 19 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which explicitly states that a reservation may only be formulated ‘when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty’.

The Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina therefore deems the so-called ‘Notification of Accession to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948)’ submitted by the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to be null and void. Moreover, the International Court of Justice declared in its Judgement of 11 July 1996, ‘Yugoslavia was bound by the provisions of the Convention’ at least at the date of the filing of the Application in the case introduced by Bosnia and Herzegovina on 20 March 1993/ICJ Rep. 1996, p.610, para. 17). The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia continues to be bound under the same conditions, that is without any reservation.

The Government of Sweden has taken note of the Secretary-General's circular notification 164.2001.TREATIES-.1 of 15 March 2001, stating the intent of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to accede, with a reservation, to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Government of Sweden regards the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as one successor state to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and, as such, a Party to the Convention from the date of the entering into force of the Convention for the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Government of Sweden hereby communicates that it considers the said reservation as having been made too late, according to article 19 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and thus null and void.

That with reference to article IX of the Convention, before any dispute to which the Republic of Singapore is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the Republic of Singapore is required in each case.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls its declaration made on 20 June 1966 on the occasion of the accession [to the said Convention].

Accordingly, the Government of the Netherlands declares that it considers the reservations made by […] and Singapore in respect of article IX of the Convention incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not consider […] and Singapore Parties to the Convention.

[…]

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have consistently stated that they are unable to accept reservations to article IX. In their view, these are not the kind of reservations which intending parties to the Convention have the right to make.

Accordingly, the Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations entered by the Government of Singapore and […] to article IX of the Convention.

In [the view of the Government of Norway], reservations in respect of article IX of the Convention are incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention. Accordingly, the Government of Norway does not accept the reservations entered by the Governments of Singapore and […] to article IX of the Convention.

Article IX: For the submission of any dispute in terms of this article to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the consent of all parties to the dispute will be required in each case.

The Portuguese Republic declares that it will interpret article VII of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as recognizing the obligation to grant extradtion[lees: extradition] established therein in cases where such extradition is not prohibited by the Constitution and other domestic legislation of the Portuguese Republic.

The Government of the State of the United Arab Emirates, having considered the aforementioned Convention and approved the contents thereof, formally declares its accession to the Convention and makes a reservation with respect to article 9 thereof concerning the submission of disputes arising between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of this Convention, to the International Court of Justice, at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.

[Montenegro] does not consider itself bound by Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and, therefore, before any dispute to which [Montenegro] is a party may be validly submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this Article, the specific and explicit consent of the FRY is required in each case.

The Government of the Republic of Cyprus has taken note of the reservations made by a number of countries when acceding to the [Convention] and wishes to state that in its view these are not the kind of reservations which intending parties to the Convention have the right to make.

Accordingly, the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not accept any reservations entered by any Government with regard to any of the Articles of the Convention.

We further declare that we have not accepted and do not accept any reservation which has already been made or which may hereafter be made by the countries signatory to this instrument or by countries which have acceded or may hereafter accede thereto.

That with reference to article IX of the Convention, before any dispute to which Malaysia is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of Malaysia is required in each case.

That the pledge to grant extradition in accordance with a state’s laws and treaties in force found in article VII extends only to acts which are criminal under the law of both the requesting and the requested state.

As regards article IX: The Soviet Union does not consider as binding upon itself the provisions of Article IX which provides that disputes between the Contracting Parties with regard to the interpretation, application and implementation of the present Convention shall be referred for examination to the International Court at the request of any party to dispute, and declares that, as regards the International Court's jurisdiction in respect of disputes concerning the interpretation, application and implementation of the Convention, the Soviet Union will, as hitherto, maintain the position that in each particular case the agreement of all parties to the dispute is essential for the submission of any particular dispute to the International Court for decision.

As regards article XII: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that it is not in agreement with Article XII of the Convention and considers that all the provisions of the Convention should extend to non-self-governing Territories, including trust territories.

The Government of the United States of America does not believe the 'State of Palestine' qualifies as a sovereign State and does not recognize it as such. Accession to the Convention is limited to sovereign States. Therefore, the Government of the United States of America believes that the 'State of Palestine' is not qualified to accede to the Convention and affirms that it will not consider itself to be in a treaty relationship with the 'State of Palestine' 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.259.2014.TREATIES-IV.1, dated 15 May 2014, conveying a communication of the United States of America regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, dated 9 December 1948.

The Government of the State of Palestine regrets the position of the United States of America 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 Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which will enter into force on 1 July 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 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 Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and the Secretary-General's communication of 9 April 2014, numbered C.N.178.2014.TREATIES-IV.1, 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 Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

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 Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 'Palestine' is not able to accede to this convention, and that the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 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.274.2014.TREATIES-IV.1, dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Canada regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, dated 9 December 1948.

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 Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which will enter into force on 1 July 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 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 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.178.2014.TREATIES-IV.1).

'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.292.2014.TREATIES-IV.1, dated 22 May 2014, conveying a communication of Israel regarding the accession of the State of Palestine to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, dated 9 December 1948.

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 Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which will enter into force on 1 July 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.