Partijen en gegevens

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 20 of the Protocol, the Republic of Azerbaijan declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 2 of Article 20.

The Republic of Azerbaijan declares that it is unable to guarantee the application of the provisions of the Protocol in the territories occupied by the Republic of Armenia until these territories are liberated from that occupation.

In accordance with paragraph 6 of Article 8 of the Protocol, the Republic of Azerbaijan declares that the Ministry of Transport is designated as an authority to receive and respond to requests for assistance, for conformation of registry or of the right of a vessel to fly its flag and for authorization to take appropriate measures.

With regard to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, the Government of Ecuador declares that migrants are the victims of illicit trafficking in persons on the part of criminal organizations whose only goal is unjust and undue enrichment at the expense of persons wishing to perform honest work abroad.

The provisions of the Protocol must be understood in conjunction with the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1990, and with current international instruments on human rights.

Exercising the powers referred to in article 20, paragraph 3, of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, the Government of Ecuador makes a reservation with regard to article 20, paragraph 2, relating to the settlement of disputes.

In accordance with article 8, paragraph 6 of the Protocol against Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, Supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, the Republic of Latvia designates the following national authorities to receive and respond to requests for assistance, for confirmation of registry or of the right of a vessel to fly its flag and for authorization to take appropriate measures:

Ministry of Interior

Raina blvd. 6,

Riga, LV-1050

Latvia

Phone: +371 7219263

Fax: +371 7271005

E-mail: kanceleja@iem.gov.lv

Homepage: http://www.iem.gov.lv

Ministry of Transport

Gogola iela 3,

Riga, LV-1743

Latvia

Phone: +371 7226922

Fax: +371 7217180

E-mail: satmin@sam.gov.lv

Homepage: http://www.sam.gov.lv

And whereas, it is provided in paragraph 3 of Article 20 of the Protocol, the Republic of Lithuania would like to declare that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 2 of Article 20, which provides that any State Party may refer any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the said Protocol to the International Court of Justice.

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

In accordance with Article 8 paragraph 6 of the supplementing Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, the Romanian central authority designated to receive the requests for assistance is the Ministry of Public Works, Transports and Housing (Blvd. Dinicu Golescu nr. 38, sector 1 Bucuresti, tel. 223 29 81/fax. 223 0272).

In ratifying the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 November 2000, declares that it does not consider itself bound by article 20, paragraph 2, of the Protocol and affirms that disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Protocol may be referred to the International Court of Justice only after it has given its prior consent.

In accordance with paragraph 3, Article 20 of the Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, the Lao People's Democratic Republic does not consider itself bound by paragraph 2, Article 20 of the present Protocol. The Lao People's Democratic Republic declares that to refer a dispute relating to interpretation and application of the present Protocol to arbitration or the International Court of Justice, the agreement of all parties concerned in the dispute is necessary.

Reservations:

The Government of the Algerian People's Democratic Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 20, paragraph 2, of this Protocol, which provides that any dispute between two or more States concerning the interpretation or application of the said Protocol that cannot be settled through negotiation shall, at the request of one of those States, be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice.

The Government of the Algerian People's Democratic Republic believes that any dispute of this kind can only be submitted to arbitration or referred to the International Court of Justice with the consent of all parties to the dispute.

With regard to article 20, paragraph 3, the Government of the Republic of El Salvador does not consider itself bound by paragraph 2 of this article, inasmuch as it does not recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

And whereas pending a decision by the Government of the Republic of South Africa on the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the Government of the Republic does not consider itself bound by the terms of Article 20 (2) of the Protocol which provides for the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in differences arising out of the interpretation or application of the Protocol. The Republic will adhere to the position that, for the submission of a particular dispute for settlement by the International Court, the consent of all the parties to the dispute is required in every individual case.

…the Kingdom of Bahrain does not consider itself bound by Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air.

In accordance with article 8, paragraph 6 of the supplementary Protocol, the Federal Department of the Interior, rue de Louvain 3, 1000 Brussels (for the coastline, the Maritime coordination and rescue centre) has been designated as the authority.

The Government of the Union of Myanmar wishes to express reservation on Article 20 and does not consider itself bound by obligations to refer disputes relating to the interpretation or application of this Protocol to the International Court of Justice.

Declarations:

Ratification of this Protocol by the Algerian People's Democratic Republic in no way signifies recognition of Israel.

Such ratification cannot be construed as leading to the establishment of any kind of relations with Israel.

With regard to article 9, paragraph 2, it hereby declares that only in the event of the revision of criminal judgements shall the State, in keeping with its domestic legislation, by law compensate the victims of judicial errors that have been duly proved.

With regard to article 18, it states that the return of smuggled migrants shall take place to the extent possible and within the means of the State.

And whereas the Secretary-General is hereby notified, in accordance with Article 8 (6) of the Protocol, that the Director-General of the Department of Transport has been designated as the authority to receive and respond to requests for assistance in terms of the Protocol.

The Government of the Republic of Malawi in its efforts to curb and stamp out offences related to trafficking in persons especially women and children has embarked upon various social and legal reforms to incorporate obligations emanating from this Protocol.

Further, expressly declares its acceptance of Article 20 (2) on settlement of disputes concerning interpretation and application of this Protocol in consonant with Article 20 (3).

The Competent Authority charged with the responsibility of coordinating and rendering of mutual legal assistance is:

The Principal Secretary

Ministry of Home Affairs and Internal Security

Private Bag 331, Lilongwe 3, MALAWI

Fax: 265 1 789509 Tel: 265 1 789 177

The Official Language of communication is English.

… in accordance with article 8 (6), the Republic of Panama has designated the Maritime Authority of Panama as the authority to receive and respond to requests for assistance and for confirmation of registry or of the right of a vessel to fly its flag.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in accordance with the provision of article 20 (3) of the Protocol against Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, Supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, formulates a reservation with respect to the provision established under paragraph 2 of the said article. Consequently, it does not consider itself obligated to refer to arbitration as a means of settlement of disputes, nor does it recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

In accordance with paragraph 3 of article 20 of the Protocol, the Republic of Moldova does not consider itself bound by provisions of paragraph 2 of article 20 of the Protocol.

Until the full establishment of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova, the provisions of the Protocol will be applied only on the territory controlled by the authorities of the Republic of Moldova.

In accordance with paragraph 6 of article 8 of the Protocol, the Ministry of Transportation and Communication is designated as a central authority responsible for receiving the requests of legal assistance referred to in this article.

Germany designates the

Bundesamt für Seeschiffahrt und Hydrographie

(Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency)

Bernhard-Nocht-Str. 78

D-20359 Hamburg

Tel. : +49 (0) 40-31900

Fax : +49 (0) 40-31905000

as the responsible authority under Article 8, paragraph 6 of the Protocol.

The central authority of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, for the Kingdom in Europe is:

Ministry of Justice

Department of International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

P.O. Box 20301

2500 EH The Hague

The Netherlands

In accordance with article 8, paragraph 6, of the Convention the central authority of Aruba is:

The Procurator-General of Aruba

Havenstraat 2,

Oranjestad

Aruba

Tel: (297) 582 1415

Fax: (297) 583 8891

om.aruba@setarnet.aw

The Kingdom of the Netherlands declares, with reference to Article 8, paragraph 6, of the Protocol, that the authority of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, for Curaçao, is:

Het Bureau voor Mensenhandel en Mensensmokkel (PATH)

Wilhelminaplein 4,

Curaçao

path@minjustcur.com

Authorization granted by a Danish authority pursuant to Article 8 denotes only that Denmark will abstain from pleading infringement of Danish sovereignty in connection with the requesting State's boarding of a vessel. Danish authorities cannot authorize another state to take legal action on behalf of the Kingdom of Denmark.

Territorial exclusion in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland.

Article 21 (3) of the Protocol provides that the instrument of accession of a regional economic integration organisation shall contain a declaration specifying the matters governed by the Protocol in respect of which competence has been transferred to the organisation by its Member States which are Parties to the Protocol.

The Protocol against the smuggling of migrants by land, air and sea shall apply, with regard to the competences transferred to the European Community, to the territories in which the Treaty establishing the European Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty, in particular Article 299 thereof and the Protocols annexed to it.

This declaration is without prejudice to the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland under the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union and under the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community. This declaration is equally without prejudice to the position of Denmark under the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community. Pursuant to Article 299, this declaration is also not applicable to the territories of the Member States in which the said Treaty does not apply and is without prejudice to such acts or positions as may be adopted under the Protocol by the Member States concerned on behalf of and in the interests of those territories. In accordance with the provision referred to above, this declaration indicates the competence that the Member States have transferred to the Community under the Treaties in matters governed by the Protocol. The scope and the exercise of such Community competence are, by their nature, subject to continuous development as the Community further adopts relevant rules and regulations, and the Community will complete or amend this declaration, if necessary, in accordance with Article 21 (3) of the Protocol.

The Community points out that it has competence with regard to the crossing of external borders of the Member States, regulating standards and procedures when carrying out checks on persons at such borders and rules on visas for intended stays of no more than three months. The Community is also competent for measures on immigration policy regarding conditions of entry and residence and measures to counter illegal immigration and illegal residence, including repatriation of illegal residents. Moreover, it can take measures to ensure cooperation between the relevant departments of the administrations of the Member States, as well as between those departments and the Commission, in the aforementioned areas. In these fields the Community has adopted rules and regulations and, where it has done so, it is hence solely for the Community to enter into external undertakings with third States or competent international organisations.

In addition, Community policy in the sphere of development cooperation complements policies pursued by Member States and includes provisions to prevent and combat smuggling of migrants.

This information concerns the modifications to the competences of the European Union (‘EU’ or ‘Union’) with regard to matters governed by the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC) and the Protocols thereto since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.

With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the powers of the European Union that succeeded the European Community have changed. This change creates the legal obligation to inform the depositary of the new competences and to specify the scope and extent of the EC (now EU) competences, pursuant to Article 36(3) UNTOC, Article 21(3) of the Protocol against Migrant Smuggling, and Article 16(3) of the Protocol against Trafficking in Persons. The information contained below supplements the information contained in the notification of 8 March 2010 to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his capacity as depositary of the UN conventions.

Notably, the UNTOC and its Protocols are mixed competence agreements. They contain provisions that fall both within exclusive competence of the EU and within shared competence jointly together with EU Member States.

The EU acquired new competences under Title V of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (Articles 82 and 83 TFEU). These new competences comprise important aspects of judicial cooperation in criminal matters (including mutual recognition of judicial decisions between EU Member States) and of police cooperation (Articles 87(2) and (3), and 89 TFEU). As regards substantive criminal law, competences under Article 83(1) TFEU extend to particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension, including terrorism, trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of women and children, illicit drug trafficking, illicit arms trafficking, money laundering, corruption, counterfeiting of means of payment, computer crime and organised crime. The EU has exercised its competence by legislating in most of these policy areas, but also other policy areas that are relevant to the Convention and its Protocols, including in relation to smuggling of migrants, environmental crimes and the freezing and confiscation of assets. Furthermore, the EU has established bodies responsible for investigating, prosecuting crimes against the Union’s financial interests.

The Union notes that it has also competence to counter fraud .and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union (Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in relation to criminal matters, Article 83(2) TFEU), including in questions relating to anti-corruption. It has exercised its competence in this area, notably with the establishment of the European Anti-Fraud Office, and the adoption of detailed rules on aspects of the fight against illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union.

The Union has also acquired the competence to establish the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) (Article 86 TFEU).

Established with Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, the EPPO is competent to investigate, prosecute and bring to judgment the perpetrators of, and accomplices to, criminal offences affecting the Union’s financial interests, notably money laundering involving property derived from such offences, fraud affecting the Union’s financial interests, corruption that damages or is likely to damage the Union’s financial interests, and misappropriation that damages such interests. The EPPO is also competent for offences regarding participation in a criminal organisation as defined in Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA, as implemented in national law, if the focus of the criminal activity of such a criminal organisation is to commit any of the above-mentioned offences affecting the Union’s financial interests.

In the areas mentioned above, it is for the Union alone to enter into international agreements with other countries or competent international organisations if such undertakings were to affect common rules or alter their scope. In the sphere of development cooperation, the European Union has competence to carry out activities and conduct a common policy. This includes support to partner countries in the ratification and implementation of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC) and the use of provisions to combat cross-border crime in agreements with partner countries. The exercise of this competence shall not prevent Member States from exercising their competences. The Union’s development cooperation policy and that of the Member States complement and reinforce each other.

In Finland the authorities responsible for suppressing the use of vessels for smuggling of migrants by sea are the Border Guard and the National Bureau of Investigation. The authority responsible for responding to a request concerning confirmation of registry or the right of a vessel to fly the flag is the Finnish Maritime Administration.

The United Kingdom has the honour to designate the Director of Detection at Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs as the authority for the purposes of paragraph 6 of article 8 of the above-mentioned Protocol. Communications should be addressed as follows:

Director of Detection

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Customs House

20 Lower Thames Street

London EC3R 6EE

Tel No: +44 (0) 870 785 3841 (office hours)

+44 (0) 870 785 3600 (24 hours)

Fax No: +44 (0) 870 240 3738 (24 hours)

(Office house 08:00 – 18:00 GMT:0:language English)

Please note that requests in languages other than English must be accompanied by a translation in English. Please provide a name; telephone number; fax number; status and requesting authority. Please also provide details of the name of port; registry type; description of vessel; vessel port; last port of call; intended destination; persons on board; nationality (ies); details of reasons for suspicion and intended action.

Pursuant to Article 8 (6) of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, Sweden designates the Ministry of Justice, as central authority to receive and respond to requests for assistance referred to in this article. Furthermore, the Swedish Coast Guard is a designated authority to respond to requests of the right of a vessel to fly a Swedish flag. Such requests should be addressed to:

NCC (National Contact Centre) Sweden at Coast Guard HQ

P.O. Box 536

S-371 23 KARLSKRONA

Sweden

Phone: + 46 455 35 35 35 (24 hours)

Fax: + 46 455 812 75 (24 hours)

E-mail: ncc.sweden@coastguard.se (24 hours).

The French, Flemish and German-speaking Communities and the Regions of Wallonia, Flanders and Brussels-Capital are also bound by this signature.

The Government of the Republic of El Salvador does not consider itself bound by paragraph 2 of article 20, inasmuch as it does not recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

With regard to article 9, paragraph 2, it hereby declares that only in the event of the revision of criminal judgements shall the State, in keeping with its domestic legislation, by law compensate the victims of judicial errors that have been duly proved.

With regard to article 18, it states that the return of smuggled migrants shall take place to the extent possible and within the means of the State.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not a party to the 1951 U.N. Convention or to the 1967 Protocol, dealing with the status of refugees.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not consider itself bound by paragraph 2 of article 20 of the Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air.

… the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not consider itself obligated to paragraph 2 of article (20) of the Protocol.

Pursuant to article 8, paragraph 6, of this Protocol, the following authority has been designated by Switzerland to receive and respond to requests for assistance, for confirmation of registry or of the right of a vessel to fly its flag and for authorization to take appropriate measures:

Swiss Maritime Navigation Office

Nauenstrasse 49

4002 Basel

Tel.: +41 61 270 91 20

In accordance with article 8, paragraph 6 of the Protocol, the Goverment of the Republic of Guatemala has designated the judiciary and the Public Prosecutor's Office as the central authorities for the receipt of requests for mutual legal assistance, with the power either to execute them or to transmit them to the competent authorities for execution.

In addition to the central authorities referred to above, the Government of the Rebublic of Guatemala has designated the Ministry of Defence, through the Navy, as the authority to receive and respond to requests for assistance, for confirmation of registry or of the right of a vessel to fly the Guatemalan flag and for authorization to take appropriate measures.

Notification under Article 8 (6):

Federal Ministry of Interior - Criminal Intelligence Service

Central Service for Combating Illegal Immigration / Human Trafficking

Bundesministerium für inneres - Bundeskriminalamt

Zentralstelle Bekämpfung Schlepperkriminalität / Menschenhandel

Josef Holaubek Platz 1

A - 1090 Vienna, Austria

Tel.: +43-1-24836-85383

Fax: +43-1-24836-85394

E-Mail: w1@bmvit.gv.at

Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology

Supreme Navigation Authority, Dept. IV/W1

Bundesministerium für verkehr, innovation und technologie

Oberste Schifffahrtsbehörde, Abt. IV/W1

Radetzkystrasse 2

A-1030 Vienna, Austria

Tel.: +43-1-71162-5900

Fax: +43-1-71162-5999

E-Mail: w1@bmvit.gv.at

In accordance with Article 20 paragraph 3, the Commonwealth of The Bahamas enters a specific reservation to the procedure established under Article 20 paragraph 2 of the Protocol on the basis that referral of a dispute concerning the application or interpretation of the provisions of the Protocol to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice must be by consent of all the parties to the dispute.

(...) the Italian Ministry of Infrastructures and Transportations has designated the "Comando Generale del Corpo delle Capitanerie di Porto" (Port Authority Headquarters) as the competent authority to receive and respond to requests for assistance, confirmation of registry or the right of a vessel to fly its flag, and authorization to take appropriate measures.

The Permanent Mission of Italy to the United Nations ....has the honour to inform that a correction has been made to the English translation of the "Comando Generale del Corpo delle Capitanerie di Porto" from "Port Authority Headquarters" to "Italian Coast Guard Headquarters"as the competent authority to receive and respond to requests for assistance, confirmation of registry or the right of a vessel to fly its flag, and authorization to take appropriate measures.

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Serbia to the OSCE and other International Organizations in Vienna presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations in his capacity of the depositary of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) and has the honour to notify of the Serbian competent authority for the implementation of the Article 8 (Measures Against Smuggling of Migrants by Sea) of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the UNTOC.

The requests shall be addressed to:

Name of Authority: Ministry of Infrastructure of the Republic of Serbia

Full postal address: Ministry of Infrastructure, 22-26 Nemanjina Street,

11000 Belgrade, Republic of Serbia

Name of Service to be contacted:

Department for Water Traffic and Navigation Safety

Name of Person to be contacted:

Mr. Veljko Kovacevic, Department for

Water Traffic and Navigation Safety

Telephone: +381 11 202 90 10

Fax: +381 11 202 00 01

E-mail: vkpomorstvo@mi.gov.rs

Office hours: from 08:30 to 16:30

Time zone: GMT 1

Languages English.

…pursuant to article 8 (6) of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, the Iraqi authority to receive and respond to requests for assistance, for confirmation of registry or of the right of a vessel to fly its flag and for authorization to take appropriate measures is the Iraqi Ministry of Transportation in cooperation with the competent Iraqi security authorities.

Reservation:

The Syrian Arab Republic expresses a reservation about the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, article 20, paragraph 2.

Declaration:

The Government of the Syrian Arab Republic is not a party to the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees referred to in the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, article 19, paragraph 1.

Declaration:

…the Government of the Republic of Indonesia conveys her declaration on the provision of Article 6 paragraph (2) subparagraph c, Article 9 paragraph (1) subparagraph a, and Article 9 paragraph (2) of the Protocol [which] will have to be implemented in strict compliance with the principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a state;

Reservation:

…the Government of the Republic of Indonesia conveys her reservation not to be bound by the provision of Article 20 (2) and takes the position that disputes relating to the interpretation and application on the Protocol which have not been settled through the channel provided for in Paragraph (1) of the said Article, may be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the concern of all Parties to the dispute.

The Greek State ratifies … Article 13 of the Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, without prejudice to Articles 9A of the Constitution, 19(3) of the Constitution, 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, 436-457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and 352B of the Criminal Code, as added by Article Second (12) of Law 3625/2007 (Government Gazette 290A), Law 2472/1997, as amended by Articles 8 of Law 2819/2000 (Government Gazette 84A), 10 of Law 3090/2002 (Government Gazette 329A) and Eighth of Law 3625/2007, Law 3471/2006 (Government Gazette 133A) and Presidential Decree 47/2005 (Government Gazette 64A).

The Greek State makes use of Article 20(3) of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, and declares that it is not bound by para. 2 of this article.

Pursuant to article 8(6), the Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines would like to notify the Secretary-General of the following:

Designation of Authority:

Mr. Keith Miller

Commissioner of Police

Point of Contact for the Designation of the Authority

Attention: Commissioner of Police

c/o Coast Guard Base

Calliaqua

P.O.Box 3020

Kingstown

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Tel: +1784 457 4578/4554

Fax: +1784 457 4586

Email: sygcoguard@vincysurf.com

Ethiopia does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice which is provided under Article 20(2) of the said Protocol.

The Republic of Cuba declares that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 20, paragraph 3 of the Protocol, it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 2 of that Article.

Article 8 (6):

Authority:

Javier Moscoso Flores

Director General of the Dirección General de Capitanías y Guardacostas,

Peru

Email: jorge.moscoso@dicapi.mil.pe.

In February 2014 the Russian Federation launched armed aggression against Ukraine and occupied a part of the territory of Ukraine – the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, and today exercises effective control over certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine.

These actions are in gross violation of the Charter of the United Nations and constitute a threat to international peace and security. The Russian Federation, as the Aggressor State and Occupying Power, bears full responsibility for its actions and their consequences under international law.

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/68/262 of 27 March 2014 confirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders. The United Nations also called upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.

In this regard, Ukraine states that from 20 February 2014 and for the period of temporary occupation by the Russian Federation of a part of the territory of Ukraine – the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol – as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation committed against Ukraine and until the complete restoration of the constitutional law and order and effective control by Ukraine over such occupied territory, as well as over certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine as a result of the aggression of the Russian Federation, the application and implementation by Ukraine of the obligations under the above [Convention], as applied to the aforementioned occupied and uncontrolled territory of Ukraine, is limited and is not guaranteed.

Documents or requests made or issued by the occupying authorities of the Russian Federation, its officials at any level in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and by the illegal authorities in certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine, are null and void and have no legal effect regardless of whether they are presented directly or indirectly through the authorities of the Russian Federation.

The provisions of the [Convention] regarding the possibility of direct communication or interaction do not apply to the territorial organs of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, as well as in certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, which are temporarily not under control of Ukraine. The procedure of the relevant communication is determined by the central authorities of Ukraine in Kyiv.

… Ukraine … is unable to guarantee full implementation of its obligations [under the above Protocol] due to the Armed aggression of the Russian Federation and with the imposition of martial law until the complete cessation of encroachment on the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine.

[The aforementioned treaty is] implemented on the territory of Ukraine in full, with the exception of the territories where hostilities are (were) conducted, or temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation, on which it is impossible to fully guarantee the Ukrainian Party’s fulfillment of its obligations under [this treaty] as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, as well as the introduction of martial law on the territory of Ukraine until the complete cessation of encroachment on the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of the borders of Ukraine.

The regularly updated list of territories where hostilities are (were) conducted, or temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation is at the link below:

https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z1668-22#Text ...

[...] the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan registers its reservation in relation to Article 18 of the said Protocol.

The Federal Republic of Germany raises an objection to the reservation of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in relation to Article 18 of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, because it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.

The declaration is a reservation, in the sense that it is a unilateral statement by a State which purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that state (cf. Article 2 (1) (d) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties). This reservation is not permissible under the terms of Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties because it is not provided for in the Protocol and it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty (cf. Article 19 (c)). Afghanistan seeks to exclude precisely the issue that Article 18 of the Protocol is intended to govern, namely the return of smuggled migrants to a State Party’s own territory.

The Government of Austria has carefully examined the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan upon accession to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

By seeking to exclude the application of Article 18 of the Protocol in its entirety, the reservation contravenes the purpose of the Protocol, namely to protect the rights of migrants and to promote cooperation among States Parties. It generally excludes a central issue the Protocol intends to govern.

Austria therefore considers the reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol and objects to it. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between Austria and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The Protocol will thus become operative between the two States without the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan benefitting from the aforementioned reservation.

The Government of the Czech Republic has examined the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan on February 2, 2017, upon accession to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime in which the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan registered its reservation in relation to its Article 18. The Government of the Czech Republic considers the reservation to Article 18 of the said Protocol to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol, since, in the opinion of the Government of the Czech Republic, Article 18 forms an essential element of the Protocol and the general derogation from it impairs the raison d'être of the Protocol.

According to Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is not permissible. Therefore, the Government of the Czech Republic objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between the Czech Republic and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, without the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan benefitting from its reservation.

The Government of Finland has carefully examined the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan concerning the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, Supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

In view of the Government of Finland, the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Article 18 of the Protocol is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol. The reservation purports to exclude in its entirety the operation of an Article regulating the return of smuggled migrants. This is a central Article of the Protocol, whose very purpose is to prevent and combat the smuggling of migrants and to promote cooperation among States Parties to that end. According to Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and customary international law reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted.

Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between Finland and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The Protocol is thus operative between the two States without the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan benefitting from its reservation.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan upon accession on 2 February 2017 to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the general reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan regarding Article 18 of the Protocol excludes the legal effect of a central provision of the Protocol, namely the return of smuggled migrants to a State Party's territory. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that a reservation of this kind must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that according to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to the Protocol. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

The Government of the Slovak Republic has carefully examined the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan upon its accession to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. By excluding Article 18 of the said Protocol, the reservation seeks to exclude a central issue the Protocol intends to govern, namely the protection of the rights of smuggled migrants and promotion of cooperation among States Parties. The reservation is incompatible with the object and the purpose of the Protocol and therefore inadmissible under Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. For these reasons, the Government of the Slovak Republic raises an objection to the aforementioned reservation. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between the Slovak Republic and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The Protocol will thus become operative between the two States without the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan benefiting from its reservation.

The Republic of Croatia has examined the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan at the time of its accession to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. The Republic of Croatia considers that the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in relation to Article 18 of the said Protocol excludes one of the most important element of the said Protocol, namely the return of smuggled migrants, and thus is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol. The Republic of Croatia would like to recall that, according to Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention no[lees: on] the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.

The Republic of Croatia therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between the Republic of Croatia and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The Protocol thus becomes operative between the two States without the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan benefitting from its reservation.

The Kingdom of Spain has carefully examined the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in relation to article 18 of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime at the time of its accession to the Protocol. The reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is not admissible under article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as there is no provision for such a reservation in the Protocol and because it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Treaty (article 19(c)). The reservation is intended to exclude completely the application of an article regulating the return of smuggled migrants. The article concerned is fundamental to the Protocol, the purpose of which is to prevent and combat the smuggling of migrants as well as to promote cooperation among States parties to that end. Thus, the Protocol shall enter into force between both States without the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan being able to benefit from the reservation made.

The Government of Hungary has examined the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan upon accession to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime whereby the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan registered a reservation in respect to its Article 18.

The reservation of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, to exclude the application of Article 18 in its entirety, contravenes the very purpose of the Protocol, that is to prevent and combat the smuggling of migrants by land, sea and air and to promote cooperation among States Parties. It generally excludes a principle issue the Protocol intends to regulate.

According to Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.

Hungary considers the aforementioned reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol, therefore objects to it. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between Hungary and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The Protocol will thus become operative between the two States without the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan benefitting from its reservation.

The Government of the Republic of Lithuania has carefully examined the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan concerning the Protocol against [the] Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, Supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

The Government of the Republic of Lithuania considers that Afghanistan’s reservation to Article 18 of the said Protocol, that intends to exclude one of the most important provision[s] of the Protocol, namely the return of smuggled migrants, is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol; and therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the said Protocol between the Republic of Lithuania and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

The Government of Estonia has examined the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in relation to Article 18 of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, Supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Estonia considers the reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol and objects to it. Article 18 forms an essential element of the Protocol and a general reservation to the article seeks to exclude the entirety of the regulation of return of smuggled migrants.

The Government of Estonia observes that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of the States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between Estonia and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The Protocol is thus operative between the two States, without the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan benefitting from its reservation.

[…] the Government of Norway has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in relation to Article 18 of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

Article 18 governs a central element of the Protocol, namely return of smuggled migrants. By declaring itself not bound by this provision, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan purports to exclude a central issue the Protocol intends to govern. This reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, and the reservation shall in accordance with Article 19 litra c of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties not be permitted.

The Government of Norway therefore objects to the reservation by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between the Government of Norway and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The Protocol is thus operative between the two States without the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan benefitting from its reservation […]

The Republic of Bulgaria has carefully examined the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan upon accession to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, adopted in New York on 15 November 2000, which states that ‘... the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan registers its reservation in relation to Article 18 of the said Protocol.’

The Republic of Bulgaria considers that the exclusion of the application of Article 18 of the Protocol as a whole places an obstacle to the sufficient implementation of the obligations laid down therein concerning the return of smuggled migrants, thus affecting the efficient cooperation among States Parties to the Protocol. Therefore, we consider that the aforementioned reservation to Article 18 is incompatible with the object and the purpose of the Protocol.

According to the aforesaid, the Republic of Bulgaria objects to the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan concerning Article 18 of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

However, the Republic of Bulgaria specifies that this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between the Republic of Bulgaria and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, without the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan benefitting from its reservation.

The Republic of Slovenia has carefully examined the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan upon accession to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, adopted in New York on 15 November 2000.

The·Republic of Slovenia considers that the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan regarding the exclusion of the application of Article 18 of the Protocol in its entirety, is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol, namely the return of smuggled migrants to a State Party’s own territory and promotion of cooperation among States Parties and is·therefore not·permissible under Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Furthermore, the option of reservations to Article 18 of the Protocol is not provided for in the Protocol.

Therefore the Republic of Slovenia objects to the reservation made by Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Article 18 of the aforementioned Protocol. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between the Republic of Slovenia and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The Protocol shall thus become operative between the two States without the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan benefitting from this reservation.

The Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan upon accession to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, by which the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan excludes the application of Article 18 of the Protocol in its entirety.

The Government of Sweden recalls that the purpose of the Protocol is to prevent and combat the smuggling of migrants, as well as to promote cooperation among States Parties to that end, while protecting the rights of smuggled migrants. The reservation by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan concerns a provision central to this purpose and must therefore be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.

According to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

For this reason, the Government of Sweden objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between Sweden and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The Protocol enters into force in its entirety between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and Sweden, without the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan benefitting from its reservation.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic has examined the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan upon accession to the Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, New York 15 November 2000.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the reservation, which seeks to exclude Article 18, is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol due to the fact that said Article constitute and essential part of the Protocol, as it represents the compromise of the State in fulfilling its obligations under said Protocol and is crucial in order to regulate the return of smuggled migrants.

The Government of the Portuguese Republic recalls that according to Article 19, subparagraph c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. The Government of the Portuguese Republic thus objects to this reservation.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Additional Protocol between the Portuguese Republic and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

The Kingdom of Belgium has carefully examined the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan upon its accession on 2 February 2017 to the Protocol against the Smuggling of migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

The Kingdom of Belgium considers the reservation to article 18 of the said Protocol as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol. This reservation seeks in effect to exclude in its entirety the application of a key provision of the Protocol, namely the return of smuggled migrants. The Kingdom of Belgium recalls that under article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State shall not be permitted to make a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty. Therefore, the Kingdom of Belgium objects to the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan with respect to article 18 of the Protocol against the Smuggling of migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

Belgium further specifies that this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The Protocol therefore will thus become operative between the two States without the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan benefitting from its reservation.

The Italian Republic has carefully examined the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan on February [2], 2017 to the Protocol against the smuggling of migrants by land, sea and air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against transnational organized crime. The Italian Republic considers that the reservation to article 18 of the Protocol seeks to exclude the application of one of the main provisions of the Protocol regarding the return of smuggled migrants, whose purpose is to protect the rights of migrants and to promote cooperation among States Parties.

The Italian Republic considers that the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan regarding article 18 of the Protocol against the smuggling of migrants by land, sea and air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against transnational organized crime is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol and therefore objects to it. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Italian Republic.

The Government of the United Mexican States has examined the reservation made the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan upon accession to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

The reservation, which intends to exclude in its entirety the legal effects of article 18 of the Protocol, contravenes the object and purpose thereof. Therefore, the reservation is not permissible under article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the United Mexican States. The Protocol will thus become operative between the two States without the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan benefitting from the aforementioned reservation.

The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the reservation made by Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 15th November 2000, done upon its [accession].

The Government of the Republic of Poland considers that the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol, and therefore – in the light of Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, done at Vienna on 23 May 1969 - is unacceptable.

Article 18 of the Protocol states inter alia that Each State Party agrees to facilitate and accept, without undue or unreasonable delay, the return of a person who has been the object of conduct set forth in Article 6 (in particular migrant smuggling and enabling a person to remain in a given state by using illegal means) and who is its national or who has the right of permanent residence in its territory at the time of return.

The above provisions [constitute] a significant part of the entire regulation included in the Protocol, whose purpose is, pursuant to Article 2, to prevent and combat the smuggling of migrants, as well as to promote cooperation among States Parties to that end, while protecting the rights of smuggled migrants.

At the same time, it should be noted that pursuant to paragraph 8 of said Article 18, the Protocol does not affect obligations accepted under any other applicable treaty, be it bilateral or multilateral, or any other appropriate agreement or arrangement of an operational nature, which regulates, wholly or in part, the return of persons who are the object of conduct set forth in Article 6.

Thus, the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan should be considered pointless, given the provisions of the declaration ‘Joint Way Forward on migration issues between Afghanistan and the EU’, signed on 2 October 2016 in Kabul, containing arrangements for facilitating the return of their own citizens.

For the above reasons, the Government of the Republic of Poland objects the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

The Government of Romania has examined the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan upon accession to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, adopted in New York on November 15, 2000.

The Government of Romania is of the view that Article 18 of the Protocol is an essential part of the said treaty, which aims to protect the rights of smuggled migrants·and promote·cooperation among States Parties.

The Government of Romania considers that the reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Article 18 in its entirety is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol and thus it is not permissible under the provisions of Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Therefore, the Government of Romania objects to the reservation formulated by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to the aforementioned Protocol. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Protocol between Romania and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

The Government of the Hellenic Republic has examined the reservation formulated by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan upon accession to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, in relation to Article 18 of the said Protocol. Article 18 which regulates the return of smuggled migrants constitutes an essential element of the Protocol necessary to its general tenour. By seeking to exclude the application of this Article in its entirety, the reservation contravenes the purpose of the Protocol which, according to Article 2 thereof, is to prevent and combat the smuggling of migrants and to promote cooperation among States Parties to that end, while protecting the rights of smuggled migrants, and impairs its raison d'être.

The Government of the Hellenic Republic considers this reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol and would like to recall that according to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Protocol is impermissible.

Therefore, the Government of the Hellenic Republic objects to the above reservation formulated by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. This objection shall not preclude, however, the entry into force of the Protocol between the Hellenic Republic and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The Protocol will thus become operative between the two States without the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan benefiting from the reservation.

Fiji reserves waiving its sovereign rights and declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 20.

[...] the Government of the Republic of Sudan, in accordance with Article (20) Paragraph (3), does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article (20) Paragraph (2) of the Protocol.

The Republic of Belarus proceeds from the assumption that the provisions of paragraphs 2 – 4 of Article 20 of the Protocol shall be interpreted in good faith as not binding for the States Parties to the Protocol with the obligations to settle disputes in the International Court of Justice with that State Party to the Protocol which withdraws its reservation on non-recognition of its jurisdiction, in situations when disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Protocol have arisen from and/or become the subject of peaceful settlement, inter alia through negotiations and/or arbitration, before, on, or immediately after the withdrawal of such a reservation.

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Lithuania to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and has the honour to transmit the objection that the Republic of Lithuania wishes to submit in regard to the ‘Interpretative Declaration’ of the Republic of Belarus concerning the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, done at New York on 15 November 2000.

The Republic of Lithuania has carefully examined the ‘Interpretative Declaration’ of the Republic of Belarus effected on 31 July 2023 (C.N.225.2023.TREATIES-XVIII.12.b (Depositary Notification)) regarding the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, done at New York on 15 November 2000, (thereinafter – Protocol).

The Republic of Lithuania objects to the said ‘Interpretative Declaration’ in so far as it seeks to modify treaty obligations and as such amounts to an invalid reservation that is devoid of any legal effect.

The ‘Interpretative Declaration’ posits that a State which has consented to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice pursuant to Article 20 (2) of the Protocol would not be bound by such provision vis-à-vis another State Party which has withdrawn its reservation to that provision pursuant to Article 20 (4) of the Protocol ‘in situations when disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Protocol have arisen from and/or become the subject of peaceful settlement, inter alia through negotiations and/or arbitration, before, on, or immediately after the withdrawal of such a reservation’.

Pursuant to Article 20 (4) of the Protocol, however, ‘[a]ny State Party that has made a reservation in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article may at any time withdraw that reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations’. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 20 (3) of the Protocol, a reservation to Article 20 (2) can only be made ‘at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance or approval of or accession to this Protocol’.

Because the Republic of Belarus acceded the Protocol without making a reservation to Article 20 (2), it cannot now modify or exclude its effect vis-à-vis a State which, under Article 20 (4), has exercised its right to withdraw ‘at any time’ its own reservation to Article 20 (2).

The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Lithuania to the United Nations avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Secretary-General of the United Nations the assurances of its highest consideration.

[...] has the honour to transmit the following statement and clarifications of the Republic of Belarus with respect to the Communication of the Republic of Lithuania (C.N.374.2023.TREATIES-XVIII.12.b (Depositary Notification)) in regard to the Interpretative Declaration of the Republic of Belarus concerning Article 20 of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime adopted on 15 November 2000 (C.N.225.2023.TREATIESXVIII.12.b (Depositary Notification)).

The Republic of Belarus made the Interpretative Declaration concerning Article 20 of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime adopted on 15 November 2000 (thereafter – Protocol) addressing it to all Parties to this Protocol.

The Republic of Belarus admits that States Parties have the full right to make their declaration or indicate their disagreement in whole or in part on the substance of its interpretative declaration to the Protocol. But at the same time their communications or objections on the issue shall not essentially constitute disguised late reservations to the treaty or arbitrarily distort the content and objective of the made interpretative declaration.

The main purpose of the Interpretative Declaration is to clearly highlight the inadmissibility of the retroactive effect of withdrawal of reservations previously made by any State Party to the Protocol on non-recognition of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under Article 20 of the Protocol, as well as the inadmissibility of any attempts of this State Party to extend the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to the application of the Protocol in the relations with other States Parties which took place prior to that kind of withdrawal (jurisdiction ratione temporis).

The State Parties to the Protocol that withdraw their reservations on no-recognition of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice shall not dilute by this action the true and fair meaning of Article 20 (3) of the Protocol containing the wording widely used in similar provisions of many other United Nations multilateral treaties: “The other States Parties shall not be bound by paragraph 2 of this article with respect to any State Party that has made such a reservation”. These provisions keep the validity with respect to the situations of the performance of the Protocol happened before the withdrawals.

The communications of State Parties to the Interpretative Declaration of the Republic of Belarus which dilute the above meaning of Article 20 (3) of the Protocol to establish the retroactive effect of the mentioned type of the withdrawals are to be regarded as amounting to reservations to Article 20 (3) of the Protocol, which are not envisaged by the Protocol and shall have no any (sic) legal effect. The retroactive effect of withdrawal of reservations is inadmissible, because it puts the States Parties which recognized the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice ab initio on unequal legal footing in relation to the States Parties which have withdrawn their reservations to Article 20 (2) of the Protocol. The latter would get more freedom and legal certainty to plan and initiate proceedings before the International Court of Justice than the former. Such an interpretation would be contrary to both treaty law and the Protocol and the principle of sovereign equality of States.

The Interpretative Declaration of the Republic of Belarus does not purport to exclude or to modify the obligations under the Protocol in their application to other parties or deny their right to withdraw any kind of reservations earlier made. It was made to highlight provisions of the Protocol concerning reservations on the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice for promoting their conventional observance, application and interpretation (according to Part III of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties “Observance, application and interpretation of treaties”).

In addition, the Republic of Belarus interprets the practice of withdrawal of a reservation to Article 20 (2) of the Protocol in a short period of time before the initiation of proceedings before the International Court of Justice as a possible contradiction to the principles pacta sunt servanda, good faith (bona fide) and free consent, depending on the faithfulness of subsequent actions of Sates Parties concerned. These principles are fundamental universally recognized principles of law that govern the creation, performance and interpretation of legal obligations under treaties, including the obligations under the Protocol (see the Preamble to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).

The Republic of Belarus also emphasizes with its interpretative declaration that the practice of application of Article 20 of the Protocol should not be construed to undermine the effectiveness of all the available peaceful dispute settlement means based on the genuine consent of the States Parties to the Protocol or to provoke an unjustified and biased recourse to the International Court of Justice.

Therefore, in the opinion of the Belarusian Party, the objections to the Interpretative Declaration of the Republic of Belarus alleging the latter to be a reservation constitute themselves wrong presentations of the Interpretative Declaration of the Republic of Belarus and/or disguised late reservations to Article 20(3) of the Protocol which are unacceptable to Belarus as a Party to the Protocol.

Bearing the aforementioned in mind, the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Belarus to the United Nations requests the Secretary General of the United Nations as the Depository to disseminate this statement and clarifications of the Republic of Belarus among all Parties to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime adopted on 15 November 2000.

[...]

[…] has the honour to refer to Communication No. 02-24/1318 by the Republic of Belarus (“Belarus”) (C.N.473.2023.TREATIESXVIII.12.b (Depositary Notification)) dated 13 November 2023, concerning Lithuania’s Communication (C.N.374.2023.TREA TIES-XVIII.12.b (Depositary Notification)) objecting to Belarus’ Interpretative Declaration on Article 20 of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime adopted on 15 November 2000 (“Protocol”) (C.N.225.2023.TREATIES-XVIII.12.b (Depositary Notification)).

Lithuania reiterates its strong objection to Belarus’ attempt to involve the Secretary-General, in his function as depositary of multilateral treaties, in a bilateral disagreement over the legal effects of Lithuania’s withdrawal of its reservation vis-a-vis the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (“Court”). Lithuania has no intention to protract this exchange with Belarus in this forum, but it nonetheless feels compelled to raise the following in response to Belarus’ latest communication.

Article 20(3) of the Protocol affirms that States may submit a reservation to Article 20(2) “at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance or approval of or accession” to the Protocol. For its part, Article 20(4) of the Protocol provides that “[a]ny State Party that has made a reservation in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article may at any time withdraw that reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.” Lithuania submitted its reservation when it ratified the Protocol on 12 May 2003.1 On 12 May 2023, Lithuania exercised its right to withdraw that reservation.

Consequently, Article 20(2) became binding between Lithuania and all other State Parties that had ratified the Protocol with no reservation to it, including Belarus, with immediate and full effect.2 Because pursuant to the terms of Article 20(4), no consent by the State Parties was required for Lithuania’s withdrawal to be valid and to produce its effect, Belarus’ objection to Lithuania’s withdrawal can also not change the applicability of Article 20(2) as between the two State Parties.

The so-called Interpretative Declaration of Belarus of 31 July 2023 (C.N.225.2023.TREATIESXVIII. 12.b (Depositary Notification)) purports to modify the legal effect of Article 20(2) of the Protocol by excluding from the jurisdiction of the Court “situations when disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Protocol have arisen from and/or become the subject of peaceful settlement, inter alia through negotiations and/or arbitration, before, on, or immediately after the withdrawal of such a reservation.” As such, the so-called Interpretative Declaration is in fact a reservation which would be permissible pursuant to Article 20(3) only when made “at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance or approval of or accession to this Protocol.” Had it wished to limit the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in this manner, Belarus should have submitted a reservation, at the latest, when it ratified the Protocol on 25 June 2003.3 Belarus did not do so then, and it cannot do so now under the guise of its “Interpretative Declaration”.

Belarus’ Communication of 13 November 2023 states that the wording of Article 20(3) has been “widely used in similar provisions of many other United Nations multilateral treaties.” An example of such a treaty is the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988). The commentary of that convention confirms that the withdrawal of a reservation to the dispute settlement clause brings the latter “into operation between the State [] withdrawing the declaration and all other States [] that have not made such declarations.”4 Article 20(2) is thus immediately applicable in the relations between Belarus – as a State that ratified the Protocol with no reservation to it – and Lithuania – as a State that withdrew its reservation to the dispute settlement clause.

Finally, in its Communication of 13 November 2023, Belarus seeks to deflect attention from its impermissible reservation by casting Lithuania’s withdrawal of its reservation as an “attempt ... to extend the jurisdiction of the [Court] to the application of the Protocol in the relations with other States Parties which took place prior to that kind of withdrawal (jurisdiction ratione temporis).” However, there can be no question that the Protocol did apply in the relations between Lithuania and the other States Parties to it, irrespective of Lithuania’s reservation to Article 20(2). The immediate applicability of that provision after the withdrawal of Lithuania’s reservation should not be conflated with a retroactive application of Article 20(2) or the other provisions of the Protocol. It cannot also be denied that whether “disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Protocol [that] have arisen from and/or become the subject of peaceful settlement, inter alia through negotiations and/or arbitration, before, on, or immediately after the withdrawal of such a reservation” fall within the jurisdiction of the Court is a matter to be determined by the Court itself pursuant to its compétence de la compétence. Insofar as Belarus’ “Interpretive Declaration” seeks to usurp that authority, this is yet another reason why it is in essence an impermissible reservation.

In light of the foregoing, Lithuania requests the Secretary General of the UN as the Depositary to disseminate this statement and clarifications of Lithuania among all Parties to the Protocol.

[…]

Voetnoten: