Partijen en gegevens

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article XI, paragraph 2 of the Convention, as they contradict the principle of the judicial immunity of a foreign State.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservation made on 24 June 1975, by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with regard to Article XI, paragraph 2 of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, done at Brussels on 29 November 1969.

The Netherlands Government considers that international law does not permit States to claim judicial immunity with regard to ships owned by them and used for commercial purposes.

The Netherlands Government assumes that the reservation does not affect the operation of Article XVI of the Agreemant between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Merchant Shipping which was concluded in Moscow on 28 May 1969.

The Netherlands Government assumes that the reservation does not affect the competence of a Netherlands Court, pursuant to Article IX of the Convention, in respect of a claim against a company which is registered in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as the operator of a ship which is the property of the Union of Soviet Republics, since such a company pursuant to Article I, paragraph 3 of the Convention is treated as the ship's ‘owner’ for the purposes of the Convention.

On this basis, the Netherlands Government, while being unable to accept the Soviet reservation, does not consider that this objection precludes the entry into force of the Convention as between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Australia has taken note of the reservation made by the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics on its accession on 24 June 1975 to the Convention, concerning Article XI(2) of the Convention. Australia wishes to advise that it is unable to accept the reservation. Australia considers that international law does not grant a State the right to immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of another State in proceedings concerning civil liability in respect of a State-owned ship used for commercial purposes. It is also Australia's understanding that the above-mentioned reservation is not intended to have the effect that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics may claim judicial immunity of a foreign State with respect to ships owned by it, used for commercial purposes and operated by a company which in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is registered as the ship's operator, when actions for compensation are brought against the company in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. Australia also declares that, while being unable to accept the Soviet reservation, it does not regard that fact as precluding the entry into force of the Convention as between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Australia.

‛… this accession in no way implies recognition of Israel and does not involve the establishment of any relations with Israel arising from the provisions of this Convention.’

‛It is declared that relations that may arise with Belize by virtue of this accession can in no sense be interpreted as recognition by the State of Guatemala of the independence and sovereignty unilaterally decreed by Belize.’

With respect to article II, because it considers that the said Convention will be understood as applicable to pollution damage caused in the sea area under the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the Peruvian State, up to the limit of 200 nautical miles, measured from the base lines of the Peruvian coast.

‛In connection with the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Peru when depositing the instrument of accession to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969, on 24 February 1987 (…), Soviet Side has the honour to confirm its position in accordance with which a coastal State has no right to claim an extension of its sovereignty to sea areas beyond the outer limit of its territorial waters the maximum breadth of which in accordance with international law can not exceed 12 nautical miles.’

‛In connexion with the declaration made by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on 20 May 1975 concerning the application of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 29 November 1969 to Berlin (West), it is the understanding of the German Democratic Republic that the provisions of the Convention may be applied to Berlin (West) only inasmuch as this is consistent with the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971, under which Berlin (West) is no constituent part of the Federal Republic of Germany and must not be governed by it.’

‘The Government of the German Democratic Republic considers that the provisions of Article XI, paragraph 2, of the Convention are inconsistent with the principle of immunity of States.’

Australia has taken note of the declaration made by the German Democratic Republic on its accession on 13 March 1978 to the Convention, concerning Article XI(2) of the Convention. Australia wishes to declare that it cannot accept the German Democratic Republic's position on sovereign immunity. Australia considers that international law does not grant a State the right to immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of another State in proceedings concerning civil liability in respect of a State-owned ship used for commercial purposes. Australia also declares that, while being unable to accept the declaration by the German Democratic Republic, it does not regard that fact as precluding the entry into force of the Convention as between the German Democratic Republic and Australia.

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

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

‛However, this accession does not in any way mean or entail the recognition of Israel, and does not lead to entering into any dealings with Israel; which may be arranged by the above mentioned Convention and the said Protocol.’

‛The Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis considers that international law does not authorize States to claim judicial immunity in respect of vessels belonging to them and used by them for commercial purposes.’