Partijen en gegevens

The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 24, paragraph 1, of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria declares that in order for a dispute to be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, the agreement of all parties to the dispute shall be required in each case.

… by virtue of the provisions of article 7, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Republic of Bolivia states that it establishes its jurisdiction in accordance with its domestic law in respect of offences committed in the situations and conditions provided for under article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

In accordance with article 7, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Government of Chile declares that, in accordance with article 6, paragraph 8, of the Courts Organization Code of the Republic of Chile, crimes and ordinary offenses committed outside the territory of the Republic which are covered in treaties concluded with other Powers remain under Chilean jurisdiction.

The Republic of Cuba declares, pursuant to article 24, paragraph 2, that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of the said article, concerning the settlement of disputes arising between States Parties, inasmuch as it considers that such disputes must be settled through amicable negotiation. In consequence, it declares that it does not recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 7, the Republic of Cyprus declares that by section 7.1 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (Ratification and other Provisions) Law No. 29 (III) of 2001, it has established jurisdiction over the offences set forth in Article 2 in all circumstances described in paragraph 2 of Article 7.

Pursuant to article 7, paragraph 3 of the Convention, the Republic of Estonia declares that in its domestic law it shall apply the jurisdiction set forth in article 7, paragraph 2, over offences set forth in article 2;

In accordance with article 2, paragraph 2 (a) of this Convention, France declares that in the application of the Convention of 14 December 1973 on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, shall be deemed not to be included in the annex referred to in article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a), since France is not a party thereto.

Pursuant to article 7, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, Iceland declares that it has established its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 of the Convention in all the cases provided for in article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

The Principality of Monaco reports, pursuant to article 7, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism adopted in New York on 9 December 1999, that it exercises very broad jurisdiction over the offences referred to in that Convention.

The jurisdiction of the Principality is thus established pursuant to article 7, paragraph 1, over:

The jurisdiction of the Principality is also established pursuant to article 7, paragraph 2 when:

In accordance with article 7, paragraph 3, of the Convention, France states that it has established its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 in all cases referred to in article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2.

In accordance with Article 2 paragraph 2 (a) of the said Convention, however, the Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines declares that in the application of this Convention to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines the following treaties shall be deemed not to be included in the Annex referred to in its Article 2 paragraph 1(a):

Republic of Uzbekistan establishes its jurisdiction over offences referred to in article 2 of the Convention in all cases stipulated in article 7, paragraph 2 of the Convention.

In accordance with the provisions of article 7, paragraph 3, the Kingdom of Spain gives notification that its courts have international jurisdiction over the offences referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, pursuant to article 23 of the Organization of Justice Act No. 6/1985 of 1 July 1985.

Pursuant to article 2, paragraph 2 (a) of the Convention referred to in the preceding article, the State of Guatemala, in ratifying the Convention, makes the following declaration: ‘In the application of this Convention, Guatemala deems the following treaties not to be included in the annex: the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, signed at Rome on 10 March 1988; the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988 and the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997. The declaration shall cease to have effect, for each of the treaties indicated, as soon as the treaty enters into force for the State of Guatemala, which shall notify the depositary of this fact.

In accordance with article 2.2, Georgia declares, that while applying this Convention, treaties to which Georgia is not contracting party shall not be considered as included in the annex to this Convention.

The Republic of Hungary declares that it establishes its jurisdiction in all the cases provided for in Article 7, Paragraph 2 of the Convention.

… AND DECLARES, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2 (a), of the Convention, that, in the application of the Convention to New Zealand, the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials adopted at Vienna on [3 March 1980] shall be deemed not to be included in the annex referred to in Article 2, paragraph 1 (a), as New Zealand is not yet a party to it; …

In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted at New York on the 9th day of December 1999, the Republic of Latvia declares that in the application of the Convention to the Republic of Latvia the following treaties shall be deemed not to be included in the annex referred to in Article 2 paragraph 1, subparagraph (a) of the Convention:

In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted at New York on the 9th day of December 1999, the Republic of Latvia notifies that the following treaties have entered into force for the Republic of Latvia:

In accordance with the provisions of article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (a), of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Government of Nicaragua declares:

That, in the application of this Convention, the treaties listed in the annex referred to in article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a), shall be deemed not to be included, given that Nicaragua is not yet a party to the following conventions:

In accordance with article 7, paragraph 3 of the Convention, Norway hereby declares that it has established its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2, of the Convention in all cases provided for in article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

Ukraine exercises its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 of the Convention in cases provided for in paragraph 2 article 7 of the Convention.

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 [Agreement], 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 [Agreement] 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 Convention] 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 ...

In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (a) of the Convention, Romania declares that, on the date of the application of this Convention to Romania, the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism Bombings of 15 December 1997, shall be deemed not to be included in the annex referred to in Article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a).

Declarations:

Pursuant to article 7, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Slovak Republic declares that it shall exercise its jurisdiction as provided for under article 7, paragraph 2, subparagraphs a) to e) of the Convention.

Reservation:

Understandings:

… with the following declaration in accordance with its article 24, paragraph 2:

The Republic of Mozambique does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 24 paragraph 1 of the Convention.

In this connection the Republic of Mozambique states that, in the each individual case, the consent of all Parties to such a dispute is necessary for the submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.

Furthermore, the Republic of Mozambique declares that:

The Republic of Mozambique, in accordance with its Constitution and domestic laws, may not and will not extradite Mozambique citizens.

Therefore, Mozambique citizens will be tried and sentenced in national courts.

… in accordance with article 7, paragraph 3, of the Convention, Mexico exercises jurisdiction over the offences defined in the Convention where:

In accordance with Article 7, paragraph 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted at New York on the 9th day of December 1999, the Republic of Latvia declares that it has established jurisdiction in all cases listed in Article 7, paragraph 2.

…pursuant to Article 7, paragraph 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, Turkey has established its jurisdiction in accordance with its domestic law in respect of offences set forth in Article 2 in all cases referred to in Article 7, paragraph 2.

…pursuant to article 7, paragraph 3 of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted on December 9, 1999, in New York, the Republic of Moldova has established its jurisdiction over the offenses set forth in article 2 in all cases referred to in article 7, paragraph 2.

The Republic of Tunisia in ratifying the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism adopted on 9 December 1999 by the General Assembly at its fifty-fourth session and signed by the Republic of Tunisia on 2 November 2001, declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 24, paragraph 1, of the Convention and affirms that, in the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or implementation of the Convention, there shall be no recourse to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice without its prior consent. The Republic of Tunisia in ratifying the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism adopted on 9 December 1999 by the General Assembly at its fifty-fourth session and signed by the Republic of Tunisia on 2 November 2001, declares that it considers itself bound by the provisions of article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention and decides to establish its jurisdiction when:

In accordance with article 7, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Principality of Liechtenstein declares that it has established its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 of the Convention in all the cases provided for in article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have examined the Declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of Jordan at the time of its ratification of the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom consider the declaration made by Jordan to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and which is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place or who carries them out.

The Government of the United Kingdom further consider the Declaration to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to ‘adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature’.

The Government of the United Kingdom recall that, according to Article 19 (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 United Kingdom therefore object to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Jordan to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Kingdom and Jordan.

The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the interpretative declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of Jordan.

The Government of Finland is of the view that the declaration amounts to a reservation as its purpose is to unilaterally limit the scope of the Convention. The Government of Finland further considers the declaration to be in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever carried out.

The declaration is, furthermore, contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to adopt measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature.

The Government of Finland wishes to recall that, according to the customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention 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 and that states are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above-mentioned interpretative declaration made by the Government of Jordan to the Convention.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Jordan and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without Jordan benefiting from its declaration.

…the Kingdom of Denmark has examined the Declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of Jordan at the time of its ratification of the Convention. The Government of Denmark considers the declaration made by Jordan to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and which is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place or who carries them out.

The Government of Denmark further considers the Declaration to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to ‘adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Government of Denmark recalls that, according to Article 19 (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 Denmark therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Jordan to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Denmark and Jordan.

The Government of Italy has examined the ‘declaration’ relating to paragraph 1 (b) of article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of Jordan at the time of its ratification to the Convention. The Government of Italy considers the declaration made by Jordan to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and which is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.

The declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to ‘adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature’. The Government of Italy recalls that, according to Article 19 (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 Italy therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Jordan to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Italy and Jordan.

The Government of Sweden has examined the declaration made by the Government of Jordan upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, according to which the Government of Jordan does not consider acts of national struggle and fighting foreign occupation in the exercise of people's right to self-determination as terrorist acts within the context of paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention.

The Government of Sweden recalls that the designation assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. The Government of Sweden considers that the declaration made by the Government of Jordan in substance constitutes a reservation.

The object and purpose of the Convention is to suppress the financing of terrorist acts, including those defined in paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention. Such acts can never be justified with reference to the exercise of people's right to self-determination.

The Government of Sweden further considers the reservation to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States parties are under an obligation to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Government of Sweden wishes 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 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.

The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of Jordan to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Jordan and Sweden. The Convention enters into force between the two parties without Jordan benefiting from its reservation.

The Government of the French Republic has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, of 9 December 1999. In that declaration, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan states that it ‘does not consider acts of national armed struggle and fighting foreign occupation in the exercise of people's right to self- determination as terrorist acts within the context of paragraph 1 (b) of article 2 of the Convention.’ However, the Convention applies to the suppression of the financing of all acts of terrorism, and its article 6 specifies that States parties shall ‘adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.’ The Government of the French Republic considers that the aforementioned declaration constitutes a reservation, and objects to that reservation. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the convention between France and Jordan.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the substance of the declarations made by the Government of the Kingdom of Jordan upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, especially that part of the declarations in which the Government of the Kingdom of Jordan states that it ‘does not consider acts of national armed struggle and fighting foreign occupation in the exercise of people's right to self-determination as terrorist acts within the context of paragraph 1 (b) of article 2 of the Convention’.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that this declaration in fact constitutes a reservation aimed at unilaterally limiting the scope of application of the Convention, and is thus contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorism, regardless of by whom and to what end it is perpetrated.

In this respect, the declaration is furthermore in contravention of Article 6 of the Convention, under which the State Parties commit themselves to adopting ‘such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature’.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above reservation by the Government of the Kingdom of Jordan to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Jordan.’

The Government of Norway has examined the declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of Jordan.

The Government of Norway considers the declaration to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and which is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of financing of terrorism, irrespective of where they take place and who carries them out.

The declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to adopt measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature.

The Government of Norway recalls that, according to customary international law, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

The Government of Norway therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Jordan to the Convention. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Norway and Jordan.

The Government of Austria has examined the Declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan at the time of its ratification of the Convention. The Government of Austria considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its object and purpose, which is the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.

The Declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to ‘adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.’

The Government of Austria recalls 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 Austria therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Austria and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

The Government of the United States of America, after careful review, considers the statement made by Jordan relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention (the Declaration) to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the offense set forth in the Convention on a unilateral basis. The Declaration is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, namely, the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place or who carries them out.

The Government of the United States also considers the Declaration to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, which provides: ‘Each state party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.’

The Government of the United States notes that, under established principles of international treaty law, as reflected in Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted.

The Government of the United States therefore objects to the Declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 made by the Government of Jordan upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection does not, however, preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United States and Jordan.

The Government of Canada has examined the Declaration made by [the] Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan at the time of its ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and considers that the Declaration is, in fact, a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention which is the suppression of the financing of terrorism, irrespective of who carries it out.

The Government of Canada considers the Declaration to be, furthermore, contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to ‘adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature’.

The Government of Canada considers that the above Declaration constitutes a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

The Government of Canada recalls that, according to Article 19 (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.

It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party 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.

The Government of Canada therefore object to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

The Government of the Republic of Hungary has examined the Declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan at the time of its ratification of the Convention. The Government of the Republic of Hungary considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its object and purpose, which is the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.

The Declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to ‘adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.’

The Government of the Republic of Hungary recalls 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 Republic of Hungary therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Hungary and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

…the Government of Portugal has examined the declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of the Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan at the time of its ratification of the Convention. The Government of Portugal considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its object and purpose, which is the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place and who carries them out.

The declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of the Article 6 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to ‘adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature’.

The Government of Portugal recalls 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.

The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan at the time of its ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, in particular the part of the declaration in which the Kingdom of Jordan states that it ‘does not consider acts of national armed struggle and fighting foreign occupation in the exercise of people's right to self-determination as terrorist acts within the context of paragraph 1 (b) of article 2 of the Convention’. The Belgian Government considers this declaration to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and which is contrary to its object and purpose, namely, the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place or who carries them out.

Moreover, the declaration contravenes article 6 of the Convention, according to which ‘Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature’.

The Belgian Government recalls that, under article 19 (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 Belgian Government therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Jordanian Government to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Belgium and Jordan.

Russia has examined the declaration made by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (1999).

Russia assumes that every state, which has expressed its consent to be bound by the provisions of the Convention, has to adopt, in accordance with article 6, such measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts, set forth in article 2, in particular acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

Sharing the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, Russia wishes to draw attention that the right of people to self-determination may not go against other fundamental principles of international law, such as the principle of settlement of disputes by peaceful means, the principle of the territorial integrity of states, the principle of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

In Russia's view, the declaration by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan may endanger the implementation of the provisions of the Convention between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and other States Parties and thus impede their interaction in the suppression of the financing of terrorism. It is of common interest to promote and enhance cooperation in devising and adopting effective practical measures to prevent terrorism financing, as well as to fight against terrorism through prosecution of and bringing to justice those involved in terrorist activity, keeping in mind that the number and seriousness of acts of international terrorism to a great extent depend on the financing that may be available to terrorists.

Russia reiterates its unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable in all its forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomsoever committed, and calls upon the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to review its position.

When depositing its instrument of ratification, the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan made a declaration which reads as follows: ‘The Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan does not consider acts of national armed struggle and fighting foreign occupation in the exercise of people's right to self-determination as terrorist acts within the context of paragraph 1 (b) of article 2 of the Convention’.

In this connection, the Government of Japan draws attention to the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Government of Japan considers that the declaration made by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan seeks to exclude acts of national armed struggle and fighting foreign occupation in the exercise of people's right to self-determination from the application of the Convention and that such declaration constitutes a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of Japan therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

With respect to the declarations made by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Arab Republic of Egypt concerning article 2, paragraph 1 (b), and any similar declaration that other States may make in the future, the Government of the Argentine Republic considers that all acts of terrorism are criminal, regardless of their motives, and that all States must strengthen their cooperation in their efforts to combat such acts and bring to justice those responsible for them.

The Government of Ireland have examined the explanatory declaration made by the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, done at New York on 9 December 1999, according to which the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan does not consider acts of national armed struggle and fighting foreign occupation foreign occupation in the exercise of people' right to self-determination as terrorist acts within the meaning of paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention.

The Government of Ireland are of the view that this declaration amounts to a reservation as its purpose is to unilaterally limit the scope of the Convention. The Government of Ireland are also of the view that this reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, namely suppressing the financing of terrorist acts, including those defined in paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention, wherever and by whomever committed. This reservation is contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States parties are under an obligation to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Government of Ireland recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a convention are not permissible. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected as to their object and purpose and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under these treaties.

The Government of Ireland therefore object to the reservation made by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The Convention enters into force between Ireland and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, without the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan benefiting from its reservation.

The Government of the Czech Republic has examined the declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan at the time of its ratification of the Convention.

The Government of the Czech Republic considers that the declaration amounts to a reservation, as its purpose is to unilaterally limit the scope of the Convention. The Government of the Czech Republic further considers the declaration to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, including those defined in paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2.of the Convention, irrespective of where they take place and who carries them out.

In addition, the Government of the Czech Republic is of the view that the declaration is contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature.

The Government of the Czech Republic wishes 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 a treaty shall not be permitted.

The Government of the Czech Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Czech Republic. The Convention enters into force between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Czech Republic without the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan benefiting from its reservation.

[The Government of Guatemala notifies,]…pursuant to article 2, paragraph 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, that on 14 March 2002 [should read: 10 April 2002], the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings entered into force for the Republic of Guatemala. Accordingly, the declaration made by the Republic of Guatemala at the time of depositing its instrument of ratification that the latter Convention was deemed not to be included in the annex to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism has ceased to have effect.

Pursuant to article 7, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, Switzerland establishes its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 in all the cases provided for in article 7, paragraph 2.

With a territorial exclusion with respect to Tokelau to the effect that: ‘… 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.’

Pursuant to Article 7, paragraph 3 of the said Convention, the Government of the Republic of Mauritius declares that it has established jurisdiction over the offences set forth in paragraph 2 of Article 7.

Pursuant to article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (a), of the Convention, Luxembourg declares that when the Convention is applied to it, the treaties listed in the annex which have not yet been ratified by Luxembourg shall be deemed not to appear in the annex.

As at the date of ratification of the Convention, the following treaties listed in the annex had been ratified by Luxembourg:

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, done at The Hague, on 16 December 1970;

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal, on 23 September 1971;

International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, on 17 December 1979;

Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted in Vienna on 3 March 1980.

Acceding to this Convention, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam makes its reservation to paragraph 1 of Article 24 of the Convention.

The Socialist Republic of Vietnam also declares that the provisions of the Convention shall not be applied with regard to the offences set forth in the following treaties to which the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is not a party:

[…] from 8 February 2014, the declaration made by the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam in accordance with Article 2.2(a) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1999, shall cease to have effect in respect of the following Conventions:

Pursuant to article 7 (3) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, Sweden provides the following information on Swedish criminal jurisdiction. Rules on Swedish criminal jurisdiction are laid down in Chapter 2 Section 1–5 in the Swedish Penal Code. The provisions have the following wording:

Pursuant to article 7, paragraph 3 of the Convention, the Government of the state of Israel hereby notifies the Secretary-General of the United Nations that it has established jurisdiction over the offences referred to in Article 2 in all the cases detailed in Article 7, paragraph 2.

Pursuant to Article 24, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the State of Israel does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 24, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

The Government of Sweden has examined the declaration made by Israel regarding article 21 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, whereby Israel intends to exclude the Protocols Additionals[lees: Additional] to the Geneva Conventions from the term international humanitarian law.

The Government of Sweden recalls that the designation assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. The Government of Sweden considers that the declaration made by Israel in substance constitutes a reservation.

It is the view of the Government of Sweden that the majority of the provisions of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions constitute customary international law, by which Israel is bound. In the absence of further clarification, Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation by Israel to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Israel and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without Israel benefiting from this reservation.

With respect to the declaration concerning article 21.of the Convention made by the State of Israel upon depositing the instrument of ratification, the Government of the Argentine Republic considers that the term ‘international humanitarian law’ covers the body of norms constituting customary and conventional law, including the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977.

The Republic of Croatia, pursuant to Article 2 paragraph 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, declares that in the application of the Convention to the Republic of Croatia the following treaties shall be deemed not to be included in the Annex referred to in Article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a) of the Convention:

Pursuant to Article 7, paragraph 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism the Republic of Croatia notifies the Secretary-General of the United Nations that it has established jurisdiction over the offence set forth in Article 2 in all the cases described in Article 7, paragraph 2 of the Convention.

In accordance with the provisions of article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (a) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Government of the Cook Islands declares:

That in the application of this Convention, the treaties listed in the annex, referred to in article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph a) shall be deemed not to be included, given that the Cook Islands is not yet a party to the following Conventions:

… , in ratifying the Convention, the Philippines has to declare, as it hereby declares, that in the application of the Convention the following treaties to which it is not yet a party shall be deemed not included in the annex:

… , this declaration shall cease to have effect upon entry into force of the said treaties with respect to the Philippines.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism with respect to its Article 14. With this reservation, the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium expresses that it reserves the right to refuse extradition or mutual legal assistance in respect of any offence which it considers to be politically motivated. In the opinion of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, this reservation seeks to limit the Convention's scope of application in a way that is incompatible with the objective and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Belgium.

The Government of Canada considers the Reservation to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to ‘…adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.’

The Government of Canada notes that, under established principles of international treaty law, as reflected in Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted.

The Government of Canada therefore objects to the Reservation relating to Article 2 made by the Government of Belgium upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism because it is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention. This objection does not, however, preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Canada and Belgium.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservation made by the Government of Belgium regarding Article 14 of the International Convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism made at the time of its ratification of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that the reservation made by the Government of Belgium is expressed to apply only ‘in exceptional circumstances’ and that, notwithstanding the application of the reservation, Belgium continues to be bound by the general legal principle of aut dedere aut judicare. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands further notes that the exceptional circumstances that are envisaged in paragraph 1 of the reservation made by the Government of Belgium are not specified in the reservation.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the offences set forth in Article 2 of the Convention to be of such grave nature, that the provisions of Article 14 should apply in all circumstances.

Furthermore the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls the principle that claims of political motivation must not be recognised as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of Belgium to the International Convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, without Belgium benefiting from its reservation.

The Government of the United States of America has examined the reservation made by Belgium on 17 May 2004 at the time of ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. The Government of the United States objects to the reservation relating to Article 14, which provides that a request for extradition or mutual legal assistance may not be refused on the sole ground that it concerns a political offense or an offense connected with a political offense or an offense inspired by political motives. The Government of the United States understands that the intent of the Government of Belgium may have been narrower than apparent from its reservation in that the Government of Belgium would expect its reservation to apply only in exceptional circumstances where it believes that, because of the political nature of the offense, an alleged offender may not receive a fair trial. The United States believes the reservation is unnecessary because of the safeguards already provided for under Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Convention. However, given the broad wording of the reservation and because the Government of the United States considers Article 14 to be a critical provision in the Convention, the United States is constrained to file this objection. This objection does not preclude entry into force of the Convention between the United States and Belgium.

The Government of Italy has examined the reservation to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of Belgium at the time of its ratification to the Convention. The Government of Italy considers the reservation by Belgium to be a unilateral limitation on the scope of the Convention, which is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorism, irrespective of where it takes place and of who carries it out.

The Government of Italy recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. The Government of Italy therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Government of Belgium to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Italy and Belgium.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium to article 14 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism at the time of ratifying the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers, in particular, that Belgium's reservation is incompatible with article 6 of the Convention, whereby States Parties undertake to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain recalls that, under the norm of customary law laid down in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the law of treaties (article 19c)), reservations which are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are prohibited.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium to article 14 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

This objection shall not impede the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and the Kingdom of Belgium.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have examined the reservation relating to Article 14 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of Belgium at the time of its ratification of the Convention.

The Government of the United Kingdom note that the effect of the said reservation is to disapply the provisions of Article 14 in exceptional circumstances. Article 14 provides that:

The Government of the United Kingdom note that the provisions of Article 14 reflect in part the principle that claims of political motivation not be recognised as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists. The Government of the United Kingdom consider this principle to be an important measure in the fight against terrorism and the provisions of Article 14 of the Convention in particular to be an essential measure in States-efforts to suppress the financing of terrorist acts.

The Government of the United Kingdom note that paragraph 1 of the reservation made by the Government of Belgium is expressed to apply only in exceptional circumstances and that, notwithstanding the application of the reservation, Belgium continues to be bound by the principle of aut dedere aut judicare as set out in Article 10 of the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom note further, however, that the exceptional circumstances that are envisaged are not specified in the reservation.

In light of the grave nature of the offences set forth in Article 2 of the Convention, the Government of the United Kingdom consider that the provisions of Article 14 should apply in all circumstances. A reservation that seeks to disapply Article 14, even while reaffirming the application of the principle of aut dedere aut judicare, undermines the effectiveness of the provisions of Article 14 of the Convention as a measure in States-efforts to suppress the financing of terrorist acts.

The Government of the United Kingdom therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Belgium to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Kingdom and Belgium.

Russia considers the Convention as an instrument designed to establish a solid and effective mechanism for cooperation between States in preventing and fighting the financing of terrorism regardless of its forms and motives. One of the basic rationales for the establishing of this mechanism is achievement of a common and impartial approach by States to the notion of an offence that consists in financing terrorists and terrorist organizations, as well as to the principles of prosecution and punishment of its perpetrators.

Russia notes that for the purposes of consistent prosecution and prevention of offences related to the financing of terrorism there is, inter alia, a clearly stipulated obligation of its States Parties under the Convention, when considering the issues of extradition based on this offence or mutual legal assistance, not to invoke any presumed connection of the committed offence with political motives.

In Russia's view, conceding to a State Party to the Convention the right to refuse extradition or mutual legal assistance on the ground that the committed offence is of political nature or connected with a political offence or inspired by political motives, impairs the rights and obligations of other States Parties to the Convention to establish their jurisdiction over the offences set forth in the Convention and prosecute perpetrators of such offences.

Moreover, defining an offence as political or connected with a political offence is not an objective criterion and introduces considerable uncertainty to the relations between the States Parties to the Convention.

Thus Russia is of the view that the reservation made by the Kingdom of Belgium can jeopardize the consistent implementation of the Convention and achievement of its key objectives, including creation of favourable conditions for concerted efforts by the international community to counter terrorism and crimes contributing to commitment of acts of terrorism.

Russia reiterates its unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations as well as any kind of assistance (including financial) in commitment of such acts, and calls upon the Kingdom of Belgium to review its position expressed in the reservation.

The Government of the Argentine Republic has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium, whereby, in exceptional circumstances, that Government reserves the right to refuse extradition or mutual legal assistance in respect of any offence set forth in article 2 which it considers to be a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence or an offence inspired by political motives.

As its provisions make clear, the intent of article 14.is to establish the inoperability of the nature or political motives of the offence. Article 14 is thus categorical and does not allow for exceptions of any kind. The Government of the Argentine Republic therefore believes that a reservation of this nature is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, and cannot accept it.

The effect of the reservation would not be offset by the affirmation of the principle aut dedere aut judicare in paragraph 2 of the reservation, since the application of this principle derives from the provisions of the Convention and does not require confirmation by States Parties. Moreover, the application of this principle, in the event that extradition does not take place, entails the exercise of local criminal jurisdiction, but the exclusion made by the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium rules out mutual legal assistance from the outset.

The Government of the Argentine Republic therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium concerning article 14 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not impede the entry into force of the Convention between the Argentine Republic and the Kingdom of Belgium.

Withdrawal of the reservation in respect of Article 14 made upon ratification.

…in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 3, of the above-mentioned International Convention, the Republic of Azerbaijan declares that it establishes its jurisdiction in all the cases provided for in Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

…the Government of the Cook Islands makes the following notification that pursuant to article 7, paragraph 3 of the Convention, the Cook Islands establishes its jurisdiction in relation to all cases referred to in article 7, paragraph 2 of the Convention.

Belgium also wishes to make the following declaration of jurisdiction: In accordance with the provisions of article 7, paragraph 3, of the Convention, Belgium declares that, pursuant to its national legislation, it establishes its jurisdiction over offences committed in the situations referred to in article 7, paragraph 2 of the Convention.

…pursuant to Article 2 (a) of the International Convention on the Financing of Terrorism, the Philippine Government has become State Party to the following international instruments:

Pursuant to Article 7, Paragraph 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, The Republic of Korea provides the following information on its criminal jurisdiction. Principles on the criminal jurisdiction are set out in the Chapter I of Part I of the Korean Penal Code. The provisions have the following wording;

Article 2 (Domestic Crimes)

This Code shall apply to anyone, whether Korean or alien, who commits a crime within the territorial boundary of the Republic of Korea.

Article 3 (Crimes by Koreans outside Korea)

This Code shall apply to a Korean national who commits a crime outside the territorial boundary of the Republic of Korea.

Article 4 (Crimes by Aliens on board Korean Vessel, etc., outside Korea)

This Code shall apply to an alien who commits a crime on board a Korean vessel or a Korean aircraft outside the territorial boundary of the Republic of Korea.

Article 5 (Crimes by Aliens outside Korea)

This Code shall apply to an alien who commits any of the following crimes outside the territorial boundary of the Republic of Korea:

Article 6 (Foreign Crimes against the Republic of Korea and Koreans outside Korea)

This Code shall apply to an alien who commits a crime, other than those specified in the preceding Article, against the Republic of Korea or its national outside the territorial boundary of the Republic of Korea, unless such act does not constitute a crime, or it is exempt from prosecution or execution of punishment under the lex loci delictus.

Article 8 (Application of General Provisions)

The provisions of the preceding Articles shall also apply to such crimes as are provided by other statutes unless provided otherwise by such statutes.

The following treaties are to be deemed not to be included in the annex:

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done on 10 March 1988;

Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.

By virtue of article 24, paragraph 2, of the Convention, Colombia declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of the said article.

Furthermore, by virtue of article 7, paragraph 3, of the Convention, Colombia states that it establishes its jurisdiction in accordance with its domestic law in accordance with paragraph 2 of the same article.

Pursuant to Article 7, Paragraph 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Republic of Slovenia declares that it has established jurisdiction over the offences in accordance with Paragraph 2.

Reservation:

The Kingdom of Bahrain does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 24 of the Convention.

Declaration:

The following Conventions shall be deemed not to be included in the annex referred to in Article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a), since Bahrain is not a party thereto:

The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the interpretative declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of article 2 of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt.

The Government of Finland is of the view that the declaration amounts to a reservation as its purpose is to unilaterally limit the scope of the Convention. The Government of Finland further considers the declaration to be in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be carried out.

The declaration is, furthermore, contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to adopt measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature.

The Government of Finland wishes to recall that, according to the customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention 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 and that states are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Finland therefore objects to the abovementioned interpretative declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the Convention.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Arab Republic of Egypt and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without the Arab Republic of Egypt benefiting from its declaration.

The Government of the French Republic has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 9 December 1999, whereby Egypt ‘… does not consider acts of national resistance in all its forms, including armed resistance against foreign occupation and aggression with a view to liberation and self-determination, as terrorist acts within the meaning of article 2, [paragraph 1], subparagraph (b), of the Convention …’. However, the Convention applies to the suppression of the financing of all acts of terrorism and states particularly in its article 6 that ‘each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature’. The Government of the French Republic considers that the said declaration constitutes a reservation, contrary to the object and the purpose of the Convention and objects to that reservation. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Arab Republic of Egypt and France.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon ratification of the Convention relating to Article 2 paragraph 1.(b) thereof. It is of the opinion that this declaration amounts to a reservation, since its purpose is to unilaterally limit the scope of the Convention. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is furthermore of the opinion that the declaration is in contradiction to the object and purpose of the Convention, in particular the object of suppressing the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be committed.

The declaration is further contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a convention are not permissible.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned declaration by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Arab Republic of Egypt.

With respect to the declarations made by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Arab Republic of Egypt concerning article 2, paragraph 1 (b), and any similar declaration that other States may make in the future, the Government of the Argentine Republic considers that all acts of terrorism are criminal, regardless of their motives, and that all States must strengthen their cooperation in their efforts to combat such acts and bring to justice those responsible for them.

The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium has examined the reservation formulated by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Ginancing of Terrorism, in particular the part of the reservation in which the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt declares that it ‘does not consider acts of national resistance in all its forms, including armed resistance against foreign occupation and aggression with a view to liberation and self-determination, as terrorist acts within the meaning of article 2, [paragraph 1], subparagraph (b), of the Convention’. The Government of Belgium considers that this reservation is a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Conventnio on a unilateral basis and that is contrary to its object and purpose, namely, the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, wherever and by whomever committed.

Moreover, this declaration is contrary to 6 of the Convention, according to which ‘each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where approriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Conventino[lees: Convention] are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature’.

The Government of Belgium recalls that, according to article 19, paragraph (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 Belgium therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Government of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Belgium and Egypt.

The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark has examined the Declaration Relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the Convention. The Government of Denmark considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and which is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place or who carries them out.

The Government of Denmark further considers the Declaration to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to ‘adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature’.

The Government of Denmark recalls that, according to Article 19(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 Denmark therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Kingdom of Denmark and the Arab Republic of Egypt.

The Government of Austria has carefully examined the Declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the Convention. The Government of Austria considers that this declaration is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its object and purpose, which is the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.

The Declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to ‘adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.’

The Government of Austria recalls 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. 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 and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Austria therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Austria and the Arab Republic of Egypt.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the declaration made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon ratification of the Convention relating to Article 2 paragraph 1.(b) thereof. It is of the opinion that this declaration amounts to a reservation, since its purpose is to unilaterally limit the scope of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is furthermore of the opinion that the declaration is in contradiction to the object and purpose of the Convention, in particular the object of suppressing the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be committed.

The declaration is further contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a convention are not permissible.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the above-mentioned declaration by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Arab Republic of Egypt.

The Government of Portugal considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its object and purpose, which is the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place and who carries them out.

The declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of the Article 6 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to ‘adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature’.

The Government of Portugal recalls that, according to Article 19 (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 Portugal therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and the Arab Republic of Egypt.

The Government of the Republic of Estonia has carefully examined the explanatory declaration relating to Article 2, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (b) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the Convention. The Government of Estonia considers the declaration made by Egypt to be in fact a reservation that seeks to limit unilaterally the scope of the Convention and is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place or who carries them out. The object and purpose of the Convention is to suppress the financing of terrorist acts, including those defined in Article 2, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (b). The Government of Estonia finds that such acts can never be justified with reference to resistance against foreign occupation and aggression with a view to liberation and self-determination.

Furthermore, the Government of Estonia is in the position that the explanatory declaration is contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, acceding to which States Parties commit themselves to ‘adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature’.

The Government of Estonia recalls that according to Article 19, sub-paragraph (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. It is in the common interest of States that all parties respect the treaties to which they have chosen to become parties as to their object and purpose, and that states are prepared to take all necessary measures to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Estonia therefore objects to the afore-mentioned declaration made by the Government of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Estonia and the Arab Republic of Egypt.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia has examined the explanatory reservation made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention of the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon accession to the Convention regarding Article 2 paragraph 1.(b) thereof.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that this explanatory declaration is in fact unilateral act that is deemed to limit the scope of the Convention and therefore should be regarded as reservation. Thus, this reservation contradicts to the objectives and purposes of the Convention to suppress the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomsoever they may be carried out.

Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the reservation conflicts with the terms of Article 6 of the Convention setting out the obligation for States Parties to adopt such measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls that customary international law as codified by Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19 (c), sets out that reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not permissible.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Latvia and the Arab Republic of Egypt. Thus, the Convention will become operative without the Arab Republic of Egypt benefiting from its reservation.

The Government of Sweden has examined the explanatory declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, according to which the Arab Republic of Egypt does not consider acts of national resistance in all its forms, including armed resistance against foreign occupation and aggression with a view of liberation and self-determination, as terrorist acts within the meaning of paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention.

The Government of Sweden recalls that the designation assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. The Government of Sweden considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt in substance constitutes a reservation.

The object and purpose of the Convention is to suppress the financing of terrorist acts, including those defined in paragraph 1 b) of Article 2 of the Convention. Such acts can never be justified with reference to the exercise of people's right to self-determination. The Government of Sweden further considers the reservation to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which the States parties are under an obligation to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Government of Sweden wishes 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 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, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservation made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Arab Republic of Egypt and Sweden. The Convention enters into force between the Arab Republic of Egypt and Sweden without the Arab Republic of Egypt benefiting from its reservation.

The Government of Italy has examined the explanatory declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, according to which the Arab Republic of Egypt does not consider acts of national resistance in all its forms, including armed resistance against foreign occupation and aggression with a view of liberation and self-determination, as terrorist acts within the meaning of paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention.

The Government of Italy recalls that the designation assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. The Government of Italy considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt in substance constitutes a reservation.

The object and purpose of the Convention is to suppress the financing of terrorist acts, including those defined in paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention. Such acts can never be justified with reference to the exercise of people's right to self-determination.

The Government of Italy further considers the reservation to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which the States parties are under an obligation to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Government of Italy wishes 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 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, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Italy therefore objects to the reservation made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Arab Republic of Egypt and Italy. The Convention enters into force between the Arab Republic of Egypt and Italy without the Arab Republic of Egypt benefiting from its reservation.

The Government of the United States of America, after careful review, considers the explanatory declaration made by Egypt to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis. The explanatory declaration is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, namely, the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place and who perpetrates them.

The Government of the United States also considers the explanatory declaration to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, which provides: ‘Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious, or other similar nature.’

The Government of the United States notes that, under established principles of international treaty law, as reflected in Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted.

The Government of the United States of America therefore objects to the explanatory declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 made by Egypt upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection does not, however, preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United States and Egypt.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservation to article 2, paragraph 1 (b), of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that this reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers, in particular, that the reservation made by the Arab Republic of Egypt is contrary to article 6 of the Convention, according to which the States Parties pledge to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (article 19 (c)), a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain therefore objects to the reservation made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to article 2, paragraph 1 (b), of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and the Arab Republic of Egypt.

The Government of Canada has examined the Declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and considers that the Declaration is, in fact, a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention which is the suppression of the financing of terrorism, irrespective of who carries it out.

The Government of Canada considers the declaration to be, furthermore, contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Government of Canada recalls that, according to Article 19 (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.

It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party 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.

The Government of Canada therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Canada and the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt.

The Government of Ireland have examined the explanatory declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, done at New York on 9 December 1999, according to which the Arab Republic of Egypt does not consider acts of national resistance in all its forms, including armed resistance against foreign occupation and aggression with a view to liberation and self-determination, as terrorist acts within the meaning of paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2.of the Convention.

The Government of Ireland are of the view that this explanatory declaration amounts to a reservation as its purpose is to unilaterally limit the scope of the Convention. The Government of Ireland are also of the view that this reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, namely suppressing the financing of terrorist acts, including those defined in paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention, wherever and by whomever committed.

This reservation is contrary to the terms of Article 6.of the Convention, according to which States parties are under an obligation to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Government of Ireland recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a convention are not permissible. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected as to their object and purpose and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under these treaties.

The Government of Ireland therefore object to the reservation made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and the Arab Republic of Egypt. The Convention enters into force between Ireland and the Arab Republic of Egypt, without the Arab Republic of Egypt benefiting from its reservation.

The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the explanatory declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism relating to article 2, paragraph 1 (b).thereof.

The Government of the Republic of Poland considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and it is, therefore, contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Republic of Poland considers that the declaration to be contrary to the terms of article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of their political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Government of the Republic of Poland wishes to recall that according to article 19 (c) of 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 Republic of Poland therefore objects to the aforesaid declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Financing of Terrorism. However this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Poland and the Arab Republic of Egypt.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have examined the explanatory declaration relating to article 2, paragraph 1 (b) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom consider the declaration made by Egypt to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis.

The Government of the United Kingdom objects to the aforesaid reservation.

The Government of the Czech Republic has examined the explanatory declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the Convention.

The Government of the Czech Republic considers that the declaration amounts to a reservation, as its purpose is to unilaterally limit the scope of the Convention. The Government of the Czech Republic further considers the declaration to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, including those defined in paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2.of the Convention, irrespective of where they take place and who carries them out.

In addition, the Government of the Czech Republic is of the view that the declaration is contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature.

The Government of the Czech Republic wishes 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 a treaty shall not be permitted.

The Government of the Czech Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Czech Republic. The Convention enters into force between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Czech Republic without the Arab Republic of Egypt benefiting from its reservation.

A reservation concerning the provisions of its article 2, paragraph 1 (b), inasmuch as the Syrian Arab Republic considers that acts of resistance to foreign occupation are not included under acts of terrorism;

Pursuant to article 2, paragraph 2.(a) of the Convention, the accession of the Syrian Arab Republic to the Convention shall not apply to the following treaties listed in the annex to the Convention until they have been adopted by the Syrian Arab Republic:

Pursuant to article 24, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Syrian Arab Republic declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of the said article; The accession of the Syrian Arab Republic to this Convention shall in no way imply its recognition of Israel or entail its entry into any dealings with Israel in the matters governed by the provisions thereof.

The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the reservation relating to paragraph 1 (b) of article 2 of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic.

The Government of Finland considers the reservation to be in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be carried out.

The reservation is, furthermore, contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to adopt measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature.

The Government of Finland wishes to recall that, according to the customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention 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 and that states are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the Convention.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Syrian Arab Republic and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without the Syrian Arab Republic benefiting from its reservation

The Government of the French Republic has examined the reservations made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 9 December 1999, inasmuch as Syria considers, with regard to the provisions of article 2, paragraph 1 (b) of the Convention that ‘… Acts of resistance to foreign occupation are not included under acts of terrorism …’. However, the Convention applies to the suppression of the financing of all acts of terrorism and states particularly in its article 6 that ‘each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature’. The Government of the French Republic considers that the said reservation is contrary to the object and the purpose of the Convention and objects to the reservation. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Syria and France.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon accession to the Convention relating to Article 2 paragraph 1.(b) thereof. It is of the opinion that this reservation unilaterally limits the scope of the Convention and is thus in contradiction to the object and purpose of the Convention, in particular the object of suppressing the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be committed.

The reservation is further contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a convention are not permissible.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Syrian Arab Republic.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon accession to the Convention relating to Article 2 paragraph 1.(b) thereof. It is of the opinion that this reservation unilaterally limits the scope of the Convention and is thus in contradiction to the object and purpose of the Convention, in particular the object of suppressing the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be committed.

The reservation is further contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a convention are not permissible.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Syrian Arab Republic.

The Government of Portugal considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its object and purpose, which is the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place and who carries them out.

The declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of the Article 6 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to ‘adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature’.

The Government of Portugal recalls that, according to Article 19 (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 Portugal therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and the Syrian Arab Republic.

The Government of Austria has carefully examined the Declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic at the time of its ratification of the Convention.

The Government of Austria considers that this declaration is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its object and purpose, which is the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.

The Declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to ‘adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.’

The Government of Austria recalls 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.

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 and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Austria therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Austria and the Syrian Arab Republic.

The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark has examined the reservation made by Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon accession to the Convention relating to Article 2 paragraph 1 (b).thereof.

The Government of Denmark considers that the reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic unilaterally limits the scope of the Convention and that the reservation is contrary to the Convention's object and purpose, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place or who carries them out.

The Government of Denmark further considers the reservation to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to ‘adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature’.

The Government of Denmark recalls that, according to Article 19(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 Denmark therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Kingdom of Denmark and the Syrian Arab Republic.

The Government of the Republic of Estonia has carefully examined the reservation relating to Article 2, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (b) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Syrian Arab Republic at the time of its accession to the Convention. The Government of Estonia considers the Syrian reservation to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place or who carries them out.

The object and purpose of the Convention is to suppress the financing of terrorist acts, including those defined in Article 2, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (b). The Government of Estonia finds that such acts can never be justified with reference to resistance to foreign occupation.

Furthermore, the Government of Estonia is in the position that the reservation is contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to ‘adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature’.

The Government of Estonia recalls that according to Article 19, sub-paragraph (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. It is in the common interest of states that all parties respect the treaties to which they have chosen to become parties as to their object and purpose, and that states are prepared to take all necessary measures to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Estonia therefore objects to the afore-mentioned reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Estonia and the Syrian Arab Republic.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia has examined the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention of the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon accession to the Convention regarding Article 2 paragraph 1 (b) thereof.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that this reservation unilaterally limits the scope of the Convention and is thus in contradiction to the objectives and purposes of the Convention to suppress the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomsoever they may be carried out.

Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the reservation conflicts with the terms of Article 6 of the Convention setting out the obligation for State Parties to adopt such measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls that customary international law as codified by Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19 (c), sets out that reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not permissible.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Latvia and the Syrian Arab Republic. Thus, the Convention will become operative without the Syrian Arab Republic benefiting from its reservation.

The Government of Norway has examined the contents of the reservation relating to paragraph 1 (b) of article 2 to the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Syrian Arab Republic.

The Government of Norway considers the reservation to be in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be carried out.

The reservation is, furthermore, contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to adopt measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature.

The Government of Norway wishes 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 purposes of the Convention 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 and that states are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with the obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Norway therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservations made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the Convention.

This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Syrian Arab Republic and Norway. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without the Syrian Arab Republic benefiting from its declaration

The Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, according to which the Syrian Arab Republic considers that acts of resistance to foreign occupation are not included under acts of terrorism within the meaning of paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention.

The object and purpose of the Convention is to suppress the financing of terrorist acts, including those defined in paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention. Such acts can never be justified with reference to the exercise of people's right to self-determination. The Government of Sweden further considers the reservation to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which the States parties are under an obligation to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Government of Sweden wishes 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 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, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Syrian Arab Republic and Sweden. The Convention enters into force between the Syrian Arab Republic and Sweden, without the Syrian Arab Republic benefiting from its reservation.

The Government of Belgium has examined the reservation formulated by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, in particular the part of the reservations and declarations relating to the provisions of article 2, paragraph 1 (b), of the Convention, in which the Syrian Arab Republic declares that it considers ‘that acts of resistance to foreign occupation are not included under acts of terrorism’.

The Government of Belgium considers that this reservation seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis, which is contrary to the object and purpose thereof, namely, the suppression of the financing of acts of terrorism, wherever and by whomever committed. Moreover, this reservation contravenes article 6 of the Convention, according to which ‘Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature’.

The Government of Belgium recalls that, under article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, no reservation may be formulated that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of Belgium therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Belgium and the Syrian Arab Republic.

The Government of Italy has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, according to which the Syrian Arab Republic considers that acts of resistance to foreign occupation are not included under acts of terrorism within the meaning of paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention.

The object and purpose of the Convention is to suppress the financing of terrorist acts, including those defined in paragraph 1 9B0[lees: paragraph 1 (b)] of Article 2 of the Convention. Such acts can never be justified with reference to the exercise of people's right to self-determination.

The Government of Italy further considers the reservation to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which the States Parties are under an obligation to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Government of Italy wishes 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 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, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

The Government of Italy objects to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Syrian Arab Republic and Italy. The Convention enters into force between the Syrian Arab Republic and Italy, without the Syrian Arab Republic benefiting from its reservation.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservation entered by the Syrian Arab Republic to article 2, paragraph 1.b), of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon ratifying that instrument.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that this reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers, in particular, that the reservation entered by the Syrian Arab Republic is incompatible with article 6 of the Convention, whereby States parties undertake to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain recalls that, under the customary-law provision enshrined in article 19 (c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty concerned are not permitted. Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain objects to the reservation entered by the Syrian Arab Republic to article 2, paragraph 1 (b), of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and the Syrian Arab Republic.

The Government of Canada has examined the Reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic at the time of its ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and considers that the Reservation seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention which is the suppression of the financing of terrorism, irrespective of who carries it out.

The Government of Canada considers the Reservation to be, furthermore, contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Government of Canada recalls that, according to Article 19 (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.

It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party 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. The Government of Canada therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Canada and the Syrian Arab Republic.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has examined the reservation relating to article 2, paragraph 1 (b) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic at the time of its accession to the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom objects to the aforesaid reservation.

When depositing its instrument of accession, the Government of Syrian Arab Republic made a reservation which reads as follows: A reservation concerning the provisions of its article 2, paragraph 1.(b), inasmuch as the Syrian Arab Republic considers that acts of resistance to foreign occupation are not included in the acts of terrorism.

In this connection, the Government of Japan draws attention of the provisions of article 6 of the Convention, according to which each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legalisation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, etnic, religious or other simulair nature. The Government of Japan considers that the aforementioned reservation made by the Syrian Arabic Republic seeks to exclude acts of resistance to foreign occupation from application of the Convention and that such reservation constitutes a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of Japan therefore objects to the reservation made by the Syrian Arabic Republic.

The Government of Ireland have examined the reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, done at New York on 9 December 1999, according to which the Syrian Arab Republic does not consider acts of resistance to foreign occupation as terrorist acts within the meaning of paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2.of the Convention. Ireland (23 June 2003): The Government of Ireland are of the view that this reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, namely suppressing the financing of terrorist acts, including those defined in paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention, wherever and by whomever committed.

This reservation is contrary to the terms of Article 6.of the Convention, according to which States parties are under an obligation to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

The Government of Ireland recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a convention are not permissible. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected as to their object and purpose and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under these treaties.

The Government of Ireland therefore object to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and the Syrian Arab Republic. The Convention enters into force between Ireland and the Syrian Arab Republic, without the Syrian Arab Republic benefiting from its reservation.

The Government of the Czech Republic has examined the reservation relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic at the time of its accession to the Convention.

The Government of the Czech Republic considers the reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, including those defined in paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention, irrespective of where they take place and who carries them out.

In addition, the Government of the Czech Republic is of the view that the reservation is contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature.

The Government of the Czech Republic wishes 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 a treaty shall not be permitted.

The Government of the Czech Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Syrian Arab Republic and the Czech Republic. The Convention enters into force between the Syrian Arab Republic and the Czech Republic without the Syrian Arab Republic benefiting from its reservation.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations made by the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea regarding article 2, paragraph 1.(a), and article 14 of the International Convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism made at the time of its signature of the said Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservations made by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea regarding article 2, paragraph 1 (a), and article 14 of the Convention are reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, according to Article 19 (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.

It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party 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.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to the International Convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The signature of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was expressed to be subject to reservations in respect of Article 2 (1) (a), Article 14 and Article 24 (1) of the Convention. The United Kingdom objects to the reservations entered by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in respect of Article 2 (1).(a) and Article 14 of the Convention, which it considers to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea at the time of its signature of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, regarding article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a) and article 14 of the Convention.

The Government of Sweden considers those reservations made by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of Sweden 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 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.

The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without the Democratic People's Republic of Korea benefiting from its reservation.

The Government of Norway has examined the reservations made by the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea upon signature of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

It is the position of the Government of Norway that the reservations with regard to paragraph 1 (a) of Article 2.and Article 14 are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, as they purport to exclude the application of core provisions of the Convention. The Government of Norway recalls that, in accordance with well-established treaty law, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

The Government of Norway therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. This objection does not preclude the entry into force, in its entirety, of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The Convention thus becomes operative between the Kingdom of Norway and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea without the Democratic People's Republic of Korea benefiting from these reservations.

The Government of Spain has examined the reservations made by the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on 12 November 2001 to articles 2, paragraph 1 (a), and 14 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (New York, 9 December 1999).

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that those reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of that Convention, since their aim is to release the People's Democratic Republic of Korea from any commitment with regard to two essential aspects of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain observes that according to the rule of customary law embodied in article 19.(c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of treaties are prohibited.

The Government of the Kingdom of Spain therefore objects to the aforementioned reservations made by the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea to the International Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism.

This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the aforementioned Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and the People's Democratic Republic of Korea.

The Government of the French Republic has examined the reservations made by the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on 12 November 2001, when it signed the International Convention on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, which was opened for signature on 10 January 2000. By indicating that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a), the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea excludes from the definition of offences within the meaning of the Convention the financing of any act which constitutes an offence within the scope of and as defined in the treaties listed in the annex.

Under article 2, paragraph 2 (a), a State Party is entitled to exclude from the definition of offences within the meaning of the Convention the financing of acts which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in any treaty listed in the annex to which it is not party; however, it is not entitled to exclude from the definition of offences within the meaning of the Convention the financing of acts which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in any treaty listed in the annex to which it is party. It just so happens that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is party to some of those treaties.

The Government of the French Republic lodges an objection to the reservation made by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea regarding article 2, paragraph 1 (a) of the Convention.

The Government of the Republic of Moldova has examined the reservations made by the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea upon signature of the International Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism.

The Government of the Republic of Moldova considers that the reservations with regard to article 2, paragraph 1.(a), and article 14 are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, as they purport to exclude the application of core provisions of the Convention.

The Government of the Republic of Moldova recalls that, according to Article 19 (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. 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.

The Government of the Republic of Moldova therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to the International Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Moldova and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The Convention enters into force in its entirety between the two States, without the Democratic People's Republic of Korea benefiting from its reservations.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservations made by the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea upon signature of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. In the opinion of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany the reservations with respect to article 2 paragraph 1 a) and article 14 of the Convention are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, since they are intended to exclude the application of fundamental provisions of the Convention.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the aforementioned reservations made by the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The Government of the Argentine Republic has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, whereby it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 2, paragraph 1 (a), of the Convention.

The effect of the reservation to article 2, paragraph 1 (a), would be to exclude from consent the financing of the acts of terrorism listed in the annex to the article. This means that the obligation to criminalize the financing of terrorism, provided for in article 2, paragraph 1, would be void, since that obligation necessarily refers to the acts mentioned in the annex to paragraph 1 (a). This reservation is therefore incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, since its legal consequence would be to exclude from consent the main obligation deriving from it.

The Government of the Argentine Republic has also examined the reservation made by the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, whereby it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 14 of the Convention.

As its provisions make clear, the intent of article 14.is to establish the inoperability of the nature or political motives of the offence. Article 14 is thus categorical, and does not allow for exceptions of any kind. The Government of the Argentine Republic therefore believes that a reservation of this nature is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, and cannot accept it.

The Government of the Argentine Republic therefore objects to the reservations made by the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea concerning article 2, paragraph 1.(a), and article 14 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not impede the entry into force of the Convention between the Argentine Republic and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

In accordance with the provisions of article 24, paragraph 2, the Argentine Republic declares that it does not consider itself bound by article 24, paragraph 1, and consequently does not accept mandatory recourse to arbitration or to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. In relation to article 7, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the Argentine Republic declares that the territorial scope of application of its criminal law is set forth in article 1 of the Argentine Penal Code (Act No. 11,729), which states:

‘This Code shall apply:

’.

The Argentine Republic shall therefore exercise jurisdiction over the offences defined in article 7, paragraph 2.(c), and over the offences defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (a), (b) and d), when they produce effects in the territory of the Argentine Republic or in places under its jurisdiction, or when they were committed abroad by agents or employees of the Argentine authorities during the performance of their duties. With regard to the offences referred to in article 7, paragraph 2 (e), jurisdiction over such offences shall be exercised in accordance with the legal provisions in force in the Argentine Republic. In this regard, reference should be made to article 199 of the Argentine Aeronautical Code, which states:

‘Acts occurring, actions carried out, and offences committed in a private Argentine aircraft over Argentine territory or its jurisdictional waters, or where no State exercises sovereignty, shall be governed by the laws of the Argentine nation and tried by its courts.

Acts occurring, actions carried out, and offences committed on board a private Argentine aircraft over foreign territory shall also fall under the jurisdiction of the Argentine courts and the application of the laws of the nation if a legitimate interest of the Argentine State or of persons domiciled therein are thereby injured or if the first landing, following the act, action or offence, occurs in the Republic’.

Pursuant to Article 24, paragraph 2 of the Convention [the] Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 24, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Understanding:

[The] Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh understands that its accession to this Convention shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with its international obligations under the Constitution of the country.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have examined the ‘understanding’ of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh at the time of its accession to the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom consider the understanding made by Bangladesh to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration made by the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. The People's Republic of Bangladesh has declared that its accession to the Convention shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with its obligations under the Constitution of the country. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that this declaration raises questions as to which obligations the People's Republic of Bangladesh intends to give precedence to in the event of any inconsistency between the Convention and its Constitution.

Declarations that leave it uncertain to what extent that State consents to be bound by its contractual obligations are in the opinion of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to be treated, in effect, as vague and general reservations, which are not compatible with the object and purpose of a Convention.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned declaration made by the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the People's Republic of Bangladesh.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the ‘understanding’ made by the People's Republic of Bangladesh to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon accession.

Thus, the Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that the understanding is in fact a unilateral act deemed to limit the scope of application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and therefore, it shall be regarded as a reservation.

Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia has noted that the understanding does not make it clear to what extent the People's Republic of Bangladesh considers itself bound by the provisions of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and whether the way of implementation of the provisions of the aforementioned Convention is in line with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Republic of Latvia therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the People's Republic of Bangladesh to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism between the Republic of Latvia and the People's Republic of Bangladesh. Thus, the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism will become operative without People's Republic of Bangladesh benefiting from its reservation.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the declaration made by the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. The People's Republic of Bangladesh has declared that its accession to the Convention shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with its international obligations under the Constitution of the country. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the opinion that this declaration raises questions as to which obligations the People's Republic of Bangladesh intends to give precedence to in the event of any inconsistency between the Convention and its Constitution. Declarations that leave it uncertain to what extent a State consents to be bound by its contractual obligations are in the opinion of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to be treated, in effect, as general reservations, which are not compatible with the object and purpose of a Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the above-mentioned declaration made by the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the People's Republic of Bangladesh.

The Government of Canada has examined the understanding made by the People's Republic of Bangladesh at the time of its accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and considers that the ‘understanding’ is, in fact, a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis.

The Government of Canada recalls that, according to Article 19 (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 Canada therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the People's Republic of Bangladesh to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Canada and the People's Republic of Bangladesh.

The Republic of Belarus establishes its jurisdiction over all offenses set forth in article 2 of the Convention in the cases described in article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2.

Interpretative declarations to be made by the Federal Republic of Brazil on the occasion of signing of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism:

The Government of Brazil would like to inform that according to the provisions of Article 7, paragraph 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism, by ratifying that instrument the Federative Republic of Brazil will exercise jurisdiction over all hypotheses foreseen in items ‘a’ to ‘e’ of paragraph 2 of the same article.

… pursuant to article 7 paragraph 3 thereof, that the Federal Republic of Germany has established jurisdiction over all offences described in article 7 paragraph 2 of the Convention.

Pursuant to article 2, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the Republic of Estonia declares, that she does not consider itself bound by the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome, on 10 March 1988, annexed to the Convention.

The Republic of Estonia withdraws the declaration made in the aforementioned instrument of Ratification, according to which the Republic of Estonia declared that she does not consider itself bound by the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988. The Protocol entered into force in respect of Estonia on 27 April 2004.

Jamaica has established jurisdiction over the offences set forth in Article 2, with respect to the jurisdiction stated in Article 7(2) (c) which states: ‘A State Party may also establish its jurisdiction over any such offence when:

…

In accordance with Article 7, paragraph 3 of the Convention, Romania declares that establishes its jurisdiction for the offences referred to in Article 2, in all cases referred to in Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2, according with the relevant provisions of the internal law.

Pursuant to article 24, paragraph 2, of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela hereby formulates an express reservation to the provisions of article 24, paragraph 1, of that Convention. Accordingly, it does not consider itself bound to resort to arbitration as a means of dispute settlement, and does not recognize the binding jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

Furthermore, pursuant to article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (a), of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, it declares that in the application of that Convention to Venezuela, the following treaties shall be deemed not to be included in the annex referred to in article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a), of that Convention until they enter into force for the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela:

By virtue of the provisions of article 7, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela declares that it has established jurisdiction under its domestic law over offences committed in the situations and under the conditions envisaged in article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

…subject to a reservation with respect to article 24, paragraph 1, thereof, in consequence of which the United Arab Emirates does not consider itself bound by that paragraph, which relates to arbitration.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands understands Article 10, paragraph 1, of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism to include the right of the competent judicial authorities to decide not to prosecute a person alleged to have committed such an offence, if, in the opinion of the competent judicial authorities grave considerations of procedural law indicate that effective prosecution will be impossible.

Confirmation of declaration of 23 March 2005.

In accordance with article 2.2 of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Government of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas declares that it is not a party to the Agreements listed as items 5 to 9 in the annex referred to in paragraph 1, subparagraph (a) of the Convention and that those Agreements shall be deemed not to be included in the annex referred to in paragraph 1, subparagraph (a). Those Agreements are:

Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 3rd March, 1980.

Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal on 24th February, 1988.

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10th March, 1988.

Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome, on 10th March, 1988.

International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15th December, 1997.

In accordance with article 7, paragraph 3 of the Convention, the Czech Republic notifies that it has established its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 of the Convention in all cases referred to in article 7, paragraph 2 of the Convention.

Declaration:

Reservation:

The Government of the Republic of Indonesia, while signatory to the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, does not consider itself bound by the provision of Article 24 and takes the position that dispute relating to the interpretation and application on the Convention which cannot be 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 consent of all the Parties to the dispute.

The Government of the Union Myanmar declares in pursuance of Article 24, paragraph (2) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 24, paragraph (1).

Regarding articles 13, 14 and 15 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Union of Myanmar reserves its right to extradite its own citizen or citizens.

Regarding article 24 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Union of Myanmar declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of the article 24 of the said Convention.

Regarding the 9 Conventions mentioned in the Annex of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Union of Myanmar declares that it is yet to be a party to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 3 March 1980.

Withdrawal of reservations to articles 13, 14 and 15 of the Convention.

(…) with reservation regarding paragraph 1 of Article (24) concerning submission of disputes to International Arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.

The Republic of Kazakhstan does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 24, paragraph 1 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

Article 11

The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that pursuant to Article 11 paragraph 2, of the Convention, it does not take this Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States Parties.

Article 14 Extradition to other countries shall be subject to the domestic laws of Pakistan.

Article 24 The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not consider itself bound by Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. The Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan hereby declares that, for a dispute to be referred to the International Court of Justice, the agreement of all parties shall in every case be required.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has examined the said reservation. The reservation provides that, ‘Extradition to other countries shall be subject to the domestic laws of Pakistan’. Reservations that leave it uncertain to what extent a State consents to be bound by its obligations are in the opinion of the Government of the United Kingdom to be treated as general reservations, which are not compatible with the object and purpose of a Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland considers that the above reservation is of that character and therefore objects to it. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the United Kingdom and Pakistan.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that the reservation with respect to Article 14 of the Convention would give precedence to domestic law in force in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that a reservation which consists of a general reference to national law, without specifying its contents, does not clearly define to other States Parties to the Convention to what extent the Islamic Republic of Pakistan considers itself bound by the obligations of the Convention and raises concerns as to the commitment of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that reservations 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, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Convention.

This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

…pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 24 the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 24 of the Convention.

[The Government of the Republic of Yemen has ratified the Convention] … subject to reservations to the following articles:

The accession of the Republic of Yemen to this Convention shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or entry into any relations with it.

The Government of Italy considers the reservation to be a unilateral limit on the scope of the Convention and thus in contradiction with its object and purpose, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.

The reservation also contradicts the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to ‘adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.’

The Government of Italy recalls that, according to Article 19 (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 Italy therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Yemen to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Italy and Yemen.

The Government of the Republic of Estonia has carefully examined the reservation made on 3 March 2010 by the Government of Yemen to Article 2 (1) (b) of the Convention.

The Government of Estonia wishes to recall that by acceding to the Convention, a State commits itself to suppress the financing of all terrorist acts. The reservation purports to exclude the suppression of the financing of acts of terrorism ‘intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict’ and thus is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.

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. The Government of Estonia therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of the Republic of Yemen to the Convention.

This objection shall not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Convention as between the Republic of Estonia and the Republic of Yemen.