Partijen en gegevens

As a Member State of the European Community, the Government of Belgium will implement the provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, in accordance with its obligations arising from the rules of the Treaties establishing the European Communities to the extent that such rules are applicable.

Subject to the condition which relates to the Annex on Implementation and Verification, that no sample collected in the United States pursuant to the Convention will be transferred for analysis to any laboratory outside the territory of the United 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.250.2018.TREATIES-XXVI.3, dated May 18, 2018, regarding the purported accession of the ‘State of Palestine’ to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, done at Geneva September 3, 1992 (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 the Republic of Cuba declares, in conformity with article III(a) (iii) of the Convention, that there is a colonial enclave in its territory — the Guantanamo Naval Base — a part of Cuban national territory over which the Cuban State does not exercise its rightful jurisdiction, owing to its illegal occupation by the United States of America by reason of a deceitful and fraudulent Treaty.

Consequently, for the purposes of the Convention, the Government of the Republic of Cuba does not assume any responsibility with respect to the aforesaid territory, since it does not know whether or not the United States has installed, possesses, maintains or intends to possess chemical weapons in the part of Cuban territory that it illegally occupies.

The Government of the Republic of Cuba also considers that it has the right to require that the entry of any inspection group mandated by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, to carry out in the territory of Guantanamo Naval Base the verification activities provided for in the Convention, should be effected through a point of entry in Cuban national territory to be determined by the Cuban Government.

The Government of the Republic of Cuba considers that, under the provisions of article XI of the Convention, the unilateral application by a State party to the Convention against another State party of any restriction which would restrict or impede trade and the development and promotion of scientific and technological knowledge in the field of chemistry for industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical or other purposes not prohibited under the Convention, would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

The Government of the Republic of Cuba designates the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, in its capacity as the national authority of the Republic of Cuba for the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, as the body of the central administration of the State responsible for organizing, directing, monitoring and supervising the activities aimed at preparing the Republic of Cuba to fulfil the obligations it is assuming as a State party to the aforementioned Convention. (vertaling)

The Islamic Republic of Iran, on the basis of the Islamic principles and beliefs, considers chemical weapons inhuman, and has consistently been on the vanguard of the international efforts to abolish these weapons and prevent their use.

.

‛ The Ministry of Economy has been designated as the national focal point for effective liaison with the Organization and other States Parties. ’

… in accordance with article VII(4) of the Convention, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been designated as the national focal point for effective liaison with the Organization and other States Parties.

… the Holy See, in conformity with the nature and particular condition of Vatican City State, intends to renew its encouragement to the International Community to continue on the path towards a situation of general and complete disarmament, capable of promoting peace and cooperation at world level.

Dialogue and multilateral negotiation are essential values in this process. Through the instruments of international law, they facilitate the peaceful resolution of controversies and help better mutual understanding. In this way they promote the effective affirmation of the culture of life and peace.

While not possessing chemical weapons of any kind, the Holy See accedes to the solemn act of ratification of the Convention in order to lend its moral support to this important area of international relations which seeks to ban weapons which are particularly cruel and inhuman and aimed at producing long-term traumatic effects among the defenceless civilian population.

The Republic of Estonia declares that for the purposes of article VII, paragraph 4, the National Authority shall be the Chemicals Notification Centre under the auspices of the Ministry of Social Affairs.

Firstly, the unilateral application by a State Party to the Convention, runs counter to the objectives and purposes of the Convention.

Secondly, the Convention must be fully and indiscriminately implemented particularly in the areas of inspection and transfer of technology for peaceful purposes.

Thirdly, no restrictions incompatible with the obligations under the Convention shall be imposed.

Fourthly, the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), is the sole international authority to determine the compliance of States Parties with the provisions of the Convention.

The Argentine Republic rejects the declaration made by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland extending the territorial scope of the above-mentioned Convention1[lees: Convention] to the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands which are an integral part of the Argentine national territory.

It likewise rejects the British statement insofar as it refers to the intention to apply the said Convention to the so-called ‘British Antarctic Territory’ and affirms that that statement in no way affects the sovereign rights of the Argentine Republic over the Argentine Antarctic Sector which is an integral part of its national territory. In this connection, it is necessary to bear in mind the terms of article IV of the Antarctic Treaty, signed on 1 December 1959, to which the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom are party.

The Argentine Republic also recalls that the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas are an integral part of the Argentine national territory and, since they are being illegally occupied by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, they form the subject of a sovereignty dispute between both parties, a fact acknowledged by several international bodies.

On this matter, the General Assembly of the United Nations has adopted resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25, in which it recognizes the existence of the sovereignty dispute related to the ‘Question of the Malvinas Islands’ and urges the Governments of the Argentine Republic and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume negotiations with a view to finding a peaceful, just and lasting solution to the dispute as soon as possible. For its part, the Special Committee on Decolonization of the United Nations has repeatedly issued similar calls, most recently through the resolution adopted on 15 June 2005. The General Assembly of the Organization of American States also adopted a further declaration on the question on 7 June 2005.

… the Kingdom of Spain considers that such an extension has been made exclusively inasmuch as Gibraltar is a territory for whose international relations the United Kingdom is responsible and, therefore, falls within the category of ‘any place under [the] jurisdiction or control [of a State Party]’, according to the terminology used in the Convention.

Therefore, the Kingdom of Spain considers that the circulation of the United Kingdom's notification in the above-mentioned terms does not prejudge in any way either the legal status of the territory nor the sovereignty claims that the Kingdom of Spain consistently maintains with regard to Gibraltar.

In accordance with instructions received from the Government, I have the honour to refer to the communication dated 30 November 2005 from the Government of Argentina to the United Nations relating to the extension of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and use of Chemical Weapons and their Destruction, to the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the British Antarctic Territory. The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are fully entitled to extend the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction to the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the British Antarctic Territory.The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have no doubts about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the British Antarctic Territory, and their surrounding maritime areas, and reject the claim by the Government of Argentina to soverignty over those islands and areas and that the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are under illegal occupation by the United Kingdom.

As a Member State of the European Community, the Government of Germany will implement the provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, in accordance with its obligations arising from the rules of the Treaties establishing the European Communities to the extent that such rules are applicable.

As a Member State of the European Community, the Government of Greece will implement the provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, in accordance with its obligations arising from the rules of the Treaties establishing the European Communities to the extent that such rules are applicable.

As a Member State of the European Community, the Government of Ireland will implement the provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, in accordance with its obligations arising from the rules of the Treaties establishing the European Communities to the extent that such rules are applicable.

As a Member State of the European Community, the Government of Italy will implement the provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, in accordance with its obligations arising from the rules of the Treaties establishing the European Communities to the extent that such rules are applicable.

As a Member State of the European Community, the Government of Luxembourg will implement the provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, in accordance with its obligations arising from the rules of the Treaties establishing the European Communities to the extent that such rules are applicable.

As a Member State of the European Community, the Government of Austria will implement the provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, in accordance with its obligations arising from the rules of the Treaties establishing the European Communities to the extent that such rules are applicable.

As a Member State of the European Community, the Government of Portugal will implement the provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, in accordance with its obligations arising from the rules of the Treaties establishing the European Communities to the extent that such rules are applicable.

‛ As a Member State of the European Community, the Government of Spain will implement the provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, in accordance with its obligations arising from the rules of the Treaties establishing the European Communities to the extent that such rules are applicable. ’

[…] shall comply with the stipulations contained [in the Convention] and observe them faithfully and sincerely, applying the Convention provisionally pending its entry into force for the Syrian Arab Republic. [The Government of the Syrian Arab Republic] also affirms the following:

The accession of the Syrian Arab Republic to the Convention shall not in any sense imply recognition of Israel, and shall not entail entering into any relations with Israel in the matters governed by the provisions thereof.

(…) has the honour to register its strong objection against the extension by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the socalled ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, of the Agreements listed at Annex and in respect of which the Secretary-General is the depositary.

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius considers that by extending these Agreements to the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, the United Kingdom purported to exercise sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago - a claim which is untenable under international law.

The Government of the Republic of Mauritius wishes to reiterate in emphatic terms that it does not recognize the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’. The fact that the Chagos Archipelago is, and has always been, part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, and that the United Kingdom has never had sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, has been authoritatively established by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019, on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965.

In this authoritative legal determination, the Court declared that the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius had not been lawfully completed in 1968, since the Chagos Archipelago had been unlawfully detached in 1965, in violation of the right of self-determination of peoples and the Charter of the United Nations, as applied and interpreted in accordance with UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, resolution 2066 (XX) of 16 December 1965, resolution 2232 (XXI) of 20 December 1966 and resolution 2357 (XXII) of 19 December 1967. Accordingly, it went on to hold that the United Kingdom’s ongoing administration of the Chagos Archipelago, as the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, was an internationally wrongful act, of a continuing nature, that engaged the State responsibility of the United Kingdom. It determined that the United Kingdom is under a legal obligation to terminate its unlawful colonial administration ‘as rapidly as possible’.

The Court further determined that all UN Member States have an obligation to cooperate with the United Nations in facilitating the completion of the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius as rapidly as possible, including an obligation not to support the continuing wrongful conduct of the United Kingdom in maintaining its colonial administration in the Chagos Archipelago.

On 22 May 2019, the General Assembly, by an overwhelming majority of 116 votes to 6, adopted resolution 73/295. By this resolution, it endorsed the Court’s Advisory Opinion, affirmed that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, and demanded that the United Kingdom terminate its unlawful colonial administration within a maximum of six months, that is, by no later than 22 November 2019. That deadline has now expired.

Moreover, the General Assembly in its resolution called upon Member States to ‘cooperate with the United Nations to ensure the completion of the decolonization of Mauritius as rapidly as possible’ and to refrain from conduct that might impede or delay the completion of decolonization. It further called upon the United Nations and all its specialized agencies to recognize that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, to support the decolonization of the Republic of Mauritius as rapidly as possible, and to refrain from impeding that process by recognizing the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’. Lastly, the resolution also called upon ‘all other international, regional and intergovernmental organizations, including those established by treaty,’ to recognize that the Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Mauritius, to support its speedy decolonization, and to ‘refrain from impeding that process’ by recognizing the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’.

The Republic of Mauritius has, over the years, consistently asserted, and hereby reasserts, its full sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. The Government of the Republic of Mauritius therefore unequivocally protests against the extension by the United Kingdom of the Agreements listed at Annex to the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’ and against the purported exercise by the United Kingdom of any sovereignty, rights or jurisdiction within the territory of the Republic of Mauritius.

For the above stated reasons, which arise from established principles of international law as authoritatively interpreted and applied by the International Court of Justice and endorsed by the UN General Assembly, the Government of the Republic of Mauritius does not recognize the extension by the United Kingdom of the Agreements listed at Annex to the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, reserves all its rights in this regard, and calls upon all States Parties to the Agreements listed at Annex to reject the United Kingdom's extension of these Agreements to the so-called ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’.

--

See depositairy notification no. C.N.49.2020.TREATIES-XXVI.3 for the Annex (list of Agreements).