Partijen en gegevens

The Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria does not approve the present wording of article 42 which might prevent the application of the Convention to ‘non-metropolitan’ Territories. ’

The Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 48, paragraph 2, which prescribe the compulsory referral of any dispute to the International Court of Justice.

The Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria declares that the agreement of all parties to a dispute shall in every case be necessary for the referral thereof to the International Court of Justice.

The State of Bahrain does not recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice laid down in Article 48, paragraph 2 of the 1975 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 as amended by the Protocol of 25 March 1972 amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. ’

… referred to in Article 49 (1)(a), (d) and (e) of the Convention, namely, subject to the right of the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh to permit temporarily in its territory:

(a) The quasi-medical use of opium,

(d) The use of cannabis, cannabis resin, extracts and tinctures of cannabis for non-medical purposes, and

(e) The production and manufacture of and trade in the drugs referred to under (a) and (d) above for the purposes mentioned therein.

I declare that my signature to this Single Convention is subject to the understanding that the Shan State is being allowed to have reservation of the right:

With reservations concerning article 12, points 2 and 3; article 13, point 2; article 14, points 1 and 2; article 31, sub-point 1(b); and article 48, point 2 (see attached note).

Text of reservations:

The People's Republic of Bulgaria does not consider herself bound to implement the provisions of article 48, paragraph 2, concerning the obligatory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

Every kind of dispute between two or more Parties on the Convention relating to its interpretation and application, which cannot be settled by negotiations, is to be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision only after the arguing Parties have given previous consent for every separate case explicitly.

The People's Republic of Bulgaria considers it necessary to stress that the wording of article 40, paragraph 1; article 12, paragraphs 2 and 3; article 13, paragraph 2; article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2; and article 31, paragraph 1 ‘b’ has a discriminatory character as it excludes the participation of a c ertain number of States. These texts are obviously inconsistent with the character of the Convention, aiming at unifying the efforts of all Parties with a view to achieving regulation of the questions, affecting the interests of all countries in this field.

In respect of Article 12, paragraphs 2 and 3,

Article 13, paragraph 2

Article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2, and

Article 31, paragraph 1(b):

The German Democratic Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 12, paragraphs 2 and 3, of Article 13, paragraph 2, of Article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2, and of Article 31, paragraph 1(b) of the Convention, insofar as they concern States which have no opportunity to become parties to the Convention in accordance with Article 40.

In respect of Article 48, paragraph 2:

The German Democratic Republic does not consider itself bound by the provision of Article 48, paragraph 2, of the Convention, which provides for compulsory jurisdiction by the International Court of Justice, and, with regard to the competence of the International Court of Justice for disputes relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention, holds the view that in any such case the consent of all parties to the dispute shall be required to refer it for decision to the International Court of Justice.

In respect of Article 40:

The German Democratic Republic considers that the provisions of Article 40 of the Convention are inconsistent with the principle that all States pursuing their policies in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations shall have the right to become parties to conventions affecting the interests of all States.

In respect of Article 42:

The position of the German Democratic Republic on Article 42 of the Convention, as far as the application of the Convention to colonial and other dependent territories is concerned, is governed by the provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (Res. 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960) proclaiming the necessity of bringing colonialism in all its forms and manifestations to a speedy and unconditional end.

The Government of the French Republic declares that it accedes thereto while reserving the possibility provided for in article 44, paragraph 2 in fine of continuing in force article 9 of the Convention for the Suppression of the Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs, signed at Geneva on 26 June 1936.

The Government of this French Republic further declares that the provisions of this Convention shall apply to the whole of the territory of the French Republic.

With reservations concerning: article 12, points 2 and 3; article 13, point 2; article 14, points 1 and 2; article 31, sub-point 1(b); and article 48, point 2. (See attached note, No. 139—1 July 1961.)

Text of the reservations:

The Hungarian People's Republic deems it necessary to state that the provisions in article 40 of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs by which certain States are barred from becoming Parties to the Convention are at variance with the principle of sovereign equality of States and are detrimental to the interests attached to the universality of the Convention. ’

Subject to ratification and to the reservations provided for in Art. 49, paragraph 1(a), (b), (d) and (e). The Government of India will, in accordance with the second sub-alinea of Article 42, endeavour to secure, within the shortest time possible, the consent of Sikkim to the application of the Convention to that territory.

The reservations referred to in Article 49(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e) of the Convention, namely, subject to the right of the Government of India to permit temporarily in any of its territories:

‛ Since the Government of India do not recognise the Nationalist Chinese authorities as the competent Government of China, they cannot regard signature of the said Convention by a Nationalist Chinese Representative as a valid signature on behalf of China. ’

Subject to ratification and to reservation to article 48, para. 2 in accordance with the attached statement.

Text of the statement:

‛ The Principality of Liechtenstein maintains in force article 9 of the Convention for the Suppression of the Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs, signed at Geneva on 26 June 1936. ’

With reservation to article 12, paragraphs 2 and 3, article 13, paragraph 2, article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2 and article 31, paragraph 1(b); text attached.

Text of the reservation:

The Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic will not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 12, paragraphs 2 and 3, article 13, paragraph 2, article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2 and article 31, paragraph 1(b) of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs as applied to States not entitled to become Parties to the Single Convention on the basis of the procedure provided for in article 40 of that Convention.

The Republic of Austria interprets Article 36 paragraph 1 as follows: The obligation of the Party contained therein may also be implemented by administrative regulations providing adequate sanction for the offences enumerated therein.

…the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan will permit temporarily in any of its territories:

In accordance with article 50, paragraph 2, the Government of Papua New Guinea hereby lodges a reservation in relation to article 48, paragraph 2, which provides for reference of a dispute to the International Court of Justice.

With the reservations to article 12, paragraphs 2 and 3; article 13, paragraph 2; article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2; article 31, paragraph 1(b) — as explained in the attached note.

Text of the reservations:

The Government of the Polish People's Republic does not consider itself being bound by the provisions of article 12, paragraphs 2 and 3, article 13, paragraph 2, article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2 and article 31, paragraph 1(b) of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and concerning States deprived of the opportunity to participate in the above Convention.

In the opinion of the Government of the Polish People's Republic it is inadmissible to impose obligations contained in the mentioned provisions, upon States, which in result of other provisions of the same Convention may be deprived of the opportunity to adhere to it.

The Polish People's Republic deems it appropriate to draw the attention to the discriminatory character of article 40, paragraph 1, of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, on the basis of which certain States have been deprived of the opportunity of becoming Parties to this Convention. The Single Convention deals with the questions of interest to all States and is meant to mobilize efforts of all countries in the struggle against the social danger which is the abuse of narcotic drugs. This Convention therefore should be open to all States. In accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, no State has the right to deprive any other State of the opportunity to participate in a Convention of such type.

The Government of Romania declares that it has decided to partially withdraw the reservation made upon accession:

‛ The accession of the Government of Saudi Arabia to the Single Convention of Narcotic Drugs shall not be construed as implying recognition of the so-called State of Israel nor does the accession, in any way, imply the intention of the Government of Saudi Arabia to enter into any intercourse whatsoever with the latter in matters bearing on this Convention. ’

‛ The Government of Israel has noted the political character of the reservation made by the Government of Saudi Arabia on that occasion. In the view of the Government of Israel, this Convention is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. Moreover, the said pronouncement by the Government of Saudi Arabia cannot in any way affect whatever obligations are binding upon Saudi Arabia, under general international law or under particular treaties. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Saudi Arabia an attitude of complete reciprocity. ’

With reservation to article 12, paragraphs 2 and 3, article 13, paragraph 2, article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2 and article 31, paragraph 1(b); text attached.

Text of the reservation:

The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 12, paragraphs 2 and 3, article 13, paragraph 2, article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2 and article 31, paragraph 1(b) of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs as applied to States not entitled to become Parties to the Single Convention on the basis of the procedure provided for in article 40 of that Convention.

Signature with the reservation to the following articles: article 12, paragraphs 2 and 3, article 13, paragraph 2, article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2 and article 31, paragraph 1(b). The text of the reservation is attached.

Text of the reservation:

The Government of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic is not bound by the provisions of article 12, paragraphs 2 and 3, article 13, paragraph 2, article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2 and article 31, paragraph 1(b) of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, concerning those States, which have been deprived of the possibility to become Parties of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, according to the procedure embodied in the article 40 of the aforesaid Convention.

‛ The Single Convention regulates questions concerning interests of all States and has as its aim to unify their endeavour in the struggle against such great evil as is the misuse of narcotics. Therefore, in accordance with the international legal principle of equality of States, neither State has the right to prevent other States in participating in the Convention of this kind in particular, and the Single Convention must, therefore, be open to all States. ’

The United States Mission to the United Nations presents its compliments to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and refers to the U.N. Secretary-General’s depositary notification C.N.797.2017.TREATIES-VI.16, dated January 2, 2018, regarding the purported accession of the ‘State of Palestine’ to the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, done at Vienna February 21, 1971 (the Convention), for which the Secretary-General of the United Nations is the depositary.

The Government of the United States of America does not believe the ‘State of Palestine’ qualifies as a sovereign State and does not recognize it as such. Accession to the Convention is limited to sovereign States. Therefore, the Government of the United States of America believes that the ‘State of Palestine’ is not qualified to accede to the Convention and affirms that it will not consider itself to be in a treaty relationship with the ‘State of Palestine’ under the Convention.

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

The Argentine Republic rejects and considers null and void the [said declaration] of territorial extension.

With reservation to article 12, paragraphs 2 and 3, article 13, paragraph 2, article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2 and article 31, paragraph 1(b); text attached.

Text of the reservation:

The Government of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic will not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 12, paragraphs 2 and 3, article 13, paragraph 2, article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2 and article 31, paragraph 1(b) of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs as applied to States not entitled to become Parties of the Single Convention on the basis of the procedure provided for in article 40 of that Convention.

The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic deems it essential to draw attention to the discriminatory character of article 40, paragraph 1, of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, under the terms of which certain States are not entitled to become Parties to the said Convention. The Single Conven- tion concerns matters which are of interest to all States and has as its objective the enlistment of the efforts of all countries in the struggle against the social evil of the abuse of narcotics. The Convention should therefore be open to all countries. According to the principle of the sovereign equality of States, no States have the right to deny to other countries the possibility of participating in a Convention of their type.

‛ Switzerland is continuing in force article 9 of the Convention for the Suppression of the Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs, signed at Geneva on 26 June 1936. ’

Ad referendum with reservation regarding article 49, paragraphs 2(b) and 4(b).

The Government of India reserve their position with regard to Articles … and 14 of the Protocol and do not consider themselves bound by the provisions of these Articles.

‛ Accession of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the Single [Convention on] Narcotic Drugs of the United Nations of 1961 does not imply its recognition on behalf of the Hellenic Republic. ’

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

The Government of the State of Israel has noted that the instruments of accession of Bahrain to the above-mentioned Conventions contain a declaration in respect of Israel.

In view of the Government of the State of Israel such declaration, which is explicity of a political character, is incompatibel with the purpose and objectives of those Conventions and cannot in any way affect whatever obligations are binding upon Bahrain under general international law or under particular conventions.

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