International Convention on the Elimination of All … document below gives the dates of signing and...

The document below gives the dates of signingand ratification of, and reservations expressedby UN states on:

The International Conventionon the Elimination of AllForms of Racial Discrimination

(Note the Australian reservation below. The goalexpressed in this declaration has not beenachieved).

Opened for signature at New York on 7 March1966

Entry into force: 4 January 1969, in accordancewith article 19.1(1)

Registration: 12 March 1969, No. 9464.

Text: United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 660, p.195.

Status: Signatories: 76. Parties: 146.

Note: The Convention was adopted by theGeneral Assembly of the United Nations inresolution 2106 (XX)2 of 21 December 1965.(2)

Afghanistan 6 Jul 1983 a

Albania 11 May 1994 a

Algeria 9 Dec 1966 14 Feb 1972

Antigua &Barbuda 25 Oct 1988 d

Argentina 13 Jul 1967 2 Oct 1968

Armenia 23 Jun 1993 a

Australia 13 Oct 1966 30 Sep 1975

Austria 22 Jul 1969 9 May 1972

Bahamas 5 Aug 1975 d

Bahrain 27 Mar 1990 a

Bangladesh 11 Jun 1979 a

Barbados 8 Nov 1972 a

Belarus 7 Mar 1966 8 Apr 1969

Belgium 17 Aug 1967 7 Aug 1975

Benin 2 Feb 1967

Bhutan 26 Mar 1973

Bolivia 7 Jun 1966 22 Sep 1970

Bosnia &Herzegovina 16 Jul 1993 d

Botswana 20 Feb 1974 a

Brazil 7 Mar 1966 27 Mar 1968

1Making Multicultural Australia International Convention on the Elimination ofAll Forms of Racial Discrimination: Signatories

International Convention on theElimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination: Signatories

Bulgaria 1 Jun 1966 8 Aug 1966

Burkina Faso 18 Jul 1974 a

Burundi 1 Feb 1967 27 Oct 1977

Cambodia 12 Apr 1966 28 Nov 1983

Cameroon 12 Dec 1966 24 Jun 1971

Canada 24 Aug 1966 14 Oct 1970

Cape Verde 3 Oct 1979 a

Central AfricanRepublic 7 Mar 1966 16 Mar 1971

Chad 17 Aug 1977 a

Chile 3 Oct 1966 20 Oct 1971

China (3) 29 Dec 1981 a

Colombia 23 Mar 1967 2 Sep 1981

Congo 11 Jul 1988 a

Costa Rica 14 Mar 1966 16 Jan 1967

Côte d'Ivoire 4 Jan 1973 a

Croatia 12 Oct 1992 d

Cuba 7 Jun 1966 15 Feb 1972

Cyprus 12 Dec 1966 21 Apr 1967

CzechRepublic (4) 22 Feb 1993 d

Denmark 21 Jun 1966 9 Dec 1971

DominicanRepublic 25 May 1983 a

Ecuador 22 Sep 1966 a

Egypt 28 Sep 1966 1 May 1967

El Salvador 30 Nov 1979 a

Estonia 21 Oct 1991 a

Ethiopia 23 Jun 1976 a

Fiji 11 Jan 1973 d

Finland 6 Oct 1966 14 Jul 1970

France 28 Jul 1971 a

Gabon 20 Sep 1966 29 Feb 1980

Gambia 29 Dec 1978 a

Germany (5, 6) 10 Feb 1967 16 May 1969

Ghana 8 Sep 1966 8 Sep 1966

Greece 7 Mar 1966 18 Jun 1970

Grenada 17 Dec 1981

Guatemala 8 Sep 1967 18 Jan 1983

Guinea 24 Mar 1966 14 Mar 1977

Guyana 11 Dec 1968 15 Feb 1977

Haiti 30 Oct 1972 19 Dec 1972

Holy See 21 Nov 1966 1 May 1969

Hungary 15 Sep 1966 4 May 1967

Iceland 14 Nov 1966 13 Mar 1967

India 2 Mar 1967 3 Dec 1968

Iran (IslamicRepublic of ) 8 Mar 1967 29 Aug 1968

Iraq 18 Feb 1969 14 Jan 1970

Ireland 21 Mar 1968

Israel 7 Mar 1966 3 Jan 1979

Italy 13 Mar 1968 5 Jan 1976

Jamaica 14 Aug 1966 4 Jun 1971


Japan 15 Dec 1995 a

Jordan 30 May 1974 a

Kuwait 15 Oct 1968 a

Lao People'sDemocraticRepublic 22 Feb 1974 a

Latvia 14 Apr 1992 a

Lebanon 12 Nov 1971 a

Lesotho 4 Nov 1971 a

Liberia 5 Nov 1976 a

Libyan ArabJamahiriya 3 Jul 1968 a

Luxembourg 12 Dec 1967 1 May 1978

Madagascar 18 Dec 1967 7 Feb 1969

Malawi 11 Jun 1996 a

Maldives 24 Apr 1984 a

Mali 16 Jul 1974 a

Malta 5 Sep 1968 27 May 1971

Mauritania 21 Dec 1966 13 Dec 1988

Mauritius 30 May 1972 a

Mexico 1 Nov 1966 20 Feb 1975

Monaco 27 Sep 1995 a

Mongolia 3 May 1966 6 Aug 1969

Morocco 18 Sep 1967 18 Dec 1970

Mozambique 18 Apr 1983 a

Namibia 11 Nov 1982 a

Nepal 30 Jan 1971 a

Netherlands 24 Oct 1966 10 Dec 1971

New Zealand 25 Oct 1966 22 Nov 1972

Nicaragua 15 Feb 1978 a

Niger 14 Mar 1966 27 Apr 1967

Nigeria 16 Oct 1967 a

Norway 21 Nov 1966 6 Aug 1970

Pakistan 19 Sep 1966 21 Sep 1966

Panama 8 Dec 1966 16 Aug 1967

PapuaNew Guinea 27 Jan 1982 a

Peru 22 Jul 1966 29 Sep 1971

Philippines 7 Mar 1966 15 Sep 1967

Poland 7 Mar 1966 5 Dec 1968

Portugal 24 Aug 1982 a

Qatar 22 Jul 1976 a

Republicof Korea 8 Aug 1978 5 Dec 1978

Republicof Moldova 26 Jan 1993 a

Romania 15 Sep 1970 a

RussianFederation 7 Mar 1966 4 Feb 1969

Rwanda 16 Apr 1975 a

Saint Lucia 14 Feb 1990 d

Saint Vincent &the Grenadines 9 Nov 1981 a

Senegal 22 Jul 1968 19 Apr 1972

Seychelles 7 Mar 1978 a

3Making Multicultural Austral ia International Convention on the Elimination ofAll Forms of Racial Discrimination: Signatories

Sierra Leone 17 Nov 1966 2 Aug 1967

Slovakia (4) 28 May 1993 d

Slovenia 6 Jul 1992 d

Solomon Islands 17 Mar 1982 d

Somalia 26 Jan 1967 26 Aug 1975

South Africa 3 Oct 1994

Spain 13 Sep 1968 a

Sri Lanka 18 Feb 1982 a

Sudan 21 Mar 1977 a

Surinam 15 Mar 1984 d

Swaziland 7 Apr 1969 a

Sweden 5 May 1966 6 Dec 1971

Switzerland 29 Nov 1994 a

Syrian ArabRepublic 21 Apr 1969 a

Tajikistan 11 Jan 1995 a

The formerYugoslav Republicof Macedonia 18 Jan 1994 d

Togo 1 Sep 1972 a

Tonga 16 Feb 1972 a

Trinidad& Tobago 9 Jun 1967 4 Oct 1973

Tunisia 12 Apr 1966 13 Jan 1967

Turkey 13 Oct 1972

Turkmenistan 29 Sep 1994 a

Uganda 21 Nov 1980 a

Ukraine 7 Mar 1966 7 Mar 1969

United ArabEmirates 20 Jun 1974 a

UnitedKingdom (7) 11 Oct 1966 7 Mar 1969

United Republicof Tanzania 27 Oct 1972 a

United Statesof America 28 Sep 1966 21 Oct 1994

Uruguay 21 Feb 1967 30 Aug 1968

Uzbekistan 28 Sep 1995 a

Venezuela 21 Apr 1967 10 Oct 1967

Viet Nam 9 Jun 1982 a

Yemen (8) 18 Oct 1972 a

Yugoslavia 15 Apr 1966 2 Oct 1967

Zaire 21 Apr 1976 a

Zambia 11 Oct 1968 4 Feb 1972

Zimbabwe 13 May 1991 a


Declarations and Reservations

(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarationsand reservations were made upon ratification,accession or succession. For objections theretoand declarations recognizing the competence ofthe Committee on the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination, see hereinafter.)

AFGHANISTAN

Reservation:

While acceding to the International Conventionon the Elimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination, the Democratic Republic ofAfghanistan does not consider itself bound bythe provisions of article 22 of the Conventionsince according to this article, in the event ofdisagreement between two or several StatesParties to the Convention on the interpretationand implementation of provisions of theConvention, the matters could be referred tothe International Court of Justice upon therequest of only one side.

The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan,therefore, states that should any disagreementemerge on the interpretation andimplementation of the Convention, the matterwill be referred to the International Court ofJustice only if all concerned parties agree withthat procedure.

Declaration:

Furthermore, the Democratic Republic ofAfghanistan states that the provisions of articles17 and 18 of the International Convention onthe Elimination of all forms of RacialDiscrimination have a discriminatory natureagainst some states and therefore are not inconformity with the principle of universality ofinternational treaties.

ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA

Declaration:

The Constitution of Antigua and Barbudaentrenches and guarantees to every person inAntigua and Barbuda the fundamental rightsand freedoms of the individual irrespective ofrace or place of origin. The Constitutionprescribes judicial processes to be observed inthe event of the violation of any of these rights,whether by the state or by a private individual.Acceptance of the Convention by theGovernment of Antigua and Barbuda does notimply the acceptance of obligations goingbeyond the constitutional limits nor theacceptance of any obligations to introducejudicial processes beyond those provided in theConstitution.

The Government of Antigua and Barbudainterprets article 4 of the Convention asrequiring a Party to enact measures in the fieldscovered by subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of thatarticle only where it is considered that the needarises to enact such legislation.

AUSTRALIA

The Government of Australia ... declares thatAustralia is not at present in a positionspecifically to treat as offences all the matterscovered by article 4(a) of the Convention. Actsof the kind there mentioned are punishable onlyto the extent provided by the existing criminallaw dealing with such matters as themaintenance of public order, public mischief,assault, riot, criminal libel, conspiracy andattempts. It is the intention of the AustralianGovernment, at the first suitable moment, toseek from Parliament legislation specificallyimplementing the terms of article 4(a).

AUSTRIA

Article 4 of the International Convention on theElimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination provides that the measuresspecifically described in subparagraphs (a), (b)


and (c) shall be undertaken with due regard tothe principles embodied in the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights and the rightsexpressly set forth in article 5 of theConvention. The Republic of Austria thereforeconsiders that through such measures the rightto freedom of opinion and expression and theright to freedom of peaceful assembly andassociation may not be jeopardized. These rightsare laid down in articles 19 and 20 of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights; theywere reaffirmed by the General Assembly of theUnited Nations when it adopted articles 19 and21 of the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights and are referred to in article 5(d)(viii) and (ix) of the present Convention."

BAHAMAS

Firstly the Government of the Commonwealthof the Bahamas wishes to state its understandingof article 4 of the International Convention onthe Elimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination. It interprets article 4 asrequiring a party to the Convention to adoptfurther legislative measures in the fields coveredby subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that articleonly in so far as it may consider with due regardto the principles embodied in the UniversalDeclaration set out in article 5 of theConvention (in particular to freedom of opinionand expression and the right of freedom ofpeaceful assembly and association) that somelegislative addition to, or variation of existinglaw and practice in these fields is necessary forthe attainment of the ends specified in article 4.Lastly, the Constitution of the Commonwealthof the Bahamas entrenches and guarantees toevery person in the Commonwealth of theBahamas the fundamental rights and freedomsof the individual irrespective of his race or placeof origin. The Constitution prescribes judicialprocess to be observed in the event of theviolation of any of these rights whether by theState or by a private individual. Acceptance ofthis Convention by the Commonwealth of theBahamas does not imply the acceptance ofobligations going beyond the constitutionallimits nor the acceptance of any obligations tointroduce judicial process beyond those

prescribed under the Constitution.

BAHRAIN (9)

Reservations:

With reference to article 22 of the Convention,the Government of the State of Bahrain declaresthat, for the submission of any dispute in termsof this article to the jurisdiction of theInternational Court of Justice, the expressconsent of all the parties to the dispute isrequired in each case.

Moreover, the accession by the State of Bahrainto the said Convention shall in no wayconstitute recognition of Israel or be a cause forthe establishment of any relations of any kindtherewith.

BARBADOS

The Constitution of Barbados entrenches andguarantees to every person in Barbados thefundamental rights and freedoms of theindividual irrespective of his race or place oforigin. The Constitution prescribes judicialprocesses to be observed in the event of theviolation of any of these rights whether by theState or by a private individual. Accession to theConvention does not imply the acceptance ofobligations going beyond the constitutionallimits nor the acceptance of any obligations tointroduce judicial processes beyond thoseprovided in the Constitution.

The Government of Barbados interprets article4 of the said Convention as requiring a Party tothe Convention to enact measures in the fieldscovered by subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of thatarticle only where it is considered that the needarises to enact such legislation.

BELARUS (10)

The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic statesthat the provision in article 17, paragraph 1, ofthe Convention on the Elimination of All Fo r m sof Racial Discrimination whereby a number ofStates are deprived of the opportunity to become


Parties to the Convention is of a discriminatorynature, and holds that, in accordance with theprinciple of the sovereign equality of States, theConvention should be open to participation byall interested States without discrimination orrestriction of any kind.

BELGIUM

In order to meet the requirements of article 4 ofthe International Convention on theElimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination, the Kingdom of Belgium willtake care to adapt its legislation to theobligations it has assumed in becoming a partyto the said Convention.

The Kingdom of Belgium nevertheless wishes toemphasize the importance which it attaches tothe fact that article 4 of the Conventionprovides that the measures laid down insubparagraphs (a), (b), and (c) should beadopted with due regard to the principlesembodied in the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights and the rights expressly set forthin article 5 of the Convention. The Kingdom ofBelgium therefore considers that the obligationsimposed by article 4 must be reconciled withthe right to freedom of opinion and expressionand the right to freedom of peaceful assemblyand association. Those rights are proclaimed inarticles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declarationof Human Rights and have been reaffirmed inarticles 19 and 21 of the International Covenanton Civil and Political Rights. They have alsobeen stated in article 5, subparagraph (d) (viii)and (ix) of the said Convention.

The Kingdom of Belgium also wishes toemphasize the importance which it attaches torespect for the rights set forth in the EuropeanConvention for the Protection of Human Rightsand Fundamental Freedoms, especially inarticles 10 and 11 dealing respectively withfreedom of opinion and expression and freedomof peaceful assembly and association.

BULGARIA (11)

The Government of the People's Republic of

Bulgaria considers that the provisions of article17, paragraph 1, and article 18, paragraph 1, ofthe International Convention on theElimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination, the effect of which is to preventsovereign States from becoming Parties to theConvention, are of a discriminatory nature. TheConvention, in accordance with the principle ofthe sovereign equality of States, should be openfor accession by all States without anydiscrimination whatsoever.

CHINA (12)

Reservation:

The People's Republic of China has reservationson the provisions of article 22 of theConvention and will not be bound by it. (Thereservation was circulated by the Secretary-General on 13 January 1982.)

Declaration:

The signing and ratification of the saidConvention by the Taiwan authorities in thename of China are illegal and null and void.

CUBA

Upon signature:

The Government of the Republic of Cuba willmake such reservations as it may deemappropriate if and when the Convention isratified.

Upon ratification:Reservation:

The Revolutionary Government of the Republicof Cuba does not accept the provision in article22 of the Convention to the effect that disputesbetween two or more States Parties shall bereferred to the International Court of Justice,since it considers that such disputes should besettled exclusively by the procedures expresslyprovided for in the Convention or bynegotiation through the diplomatic channelbetween the disputants.


Statement:

This Convention, intended to eliminate allforms of racial discrimination, should not, as itexpressly does in articles 17 and 18, excludeStates not Members of the United Nations,members of the specialized agencies or Parties tothe Statute of the International Court of Justicefrom making an effective contribution underthe Convention, since these articles constitute inthemselves a form of discrimination that is atvariance with the principles set out in theConvention; the Revolutionary Government ofthe Republic of Cuba accordingly ratifies theConvention, but with the qualification justindicated.

CZECH REPUBLIC (4)

DENMARK (13)

EGYPT (14)

The United Arab Republic does not consideritself bound by the provisions of article 22 ofthe Convention, under which any disputebetween two or more States Parties with respectto the interpretation or application of theConvention is, at the request of any of theparties to the dispute, to be referred to theInternational Court of Justice for decision, andit states that, in each individual case, theconsent of all parties to such a dispute isnecessary for referring the dispute to theInternational Court of Justice.

FIJI

“The reservation and declarations formulated bythe Government of the United Kingdom onbehalf of Fiji are affirmed but have beenredrafted in the following terms:

To the extent, if any, that any law relating toelections in Fiji may not fulfil the obligationsreferred to in article 5(c), that any law relatingto land in Fiji which prohibits or restricts thealienation of land by the indigenous inhabitantsmay not fulfil the obligations referred to inarticle 5(d) (v), or that the school system of Fiji

may not fulfil the obligations referred to inarticles 2, 3, or 5(e) (v), the Government of Fijireserves the right not to implement theaforementioned provisions of the Convention.

The Government of Fiji wishes to state itsunderstanding of certain articles in theConvention. It interprets article 4 as requiring aparty to the Convention to adopt furtherlegislative measures in the fields covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only inso far as it may consider with due regard to theprinciples embodied in the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights and the rightsexpressly set forth in article 5 of the Convention(in particular the right to freedom of opinionand expression and the right to freedom ofpeaceful assembly and association) that somelegislative addition to or variation of existinglaw and practice in those fields is necessary forthe attainment of the end specified in the earlierpar of Article 4.

Further, the Government of Fiji interprets therequirement in article 6 concerning 'reparationor satisfaction' as being fulfilled if one or otherof these forms of redress is made available andinterprets 'satisfaction' as including any form ofredress effective to bring the discriminatoryconduct to an and. In addition it interpretsarticle 20 and the other related provisions ofPart III of the Convention as meaning that if areservation is not accepted the State making thereservation does not become a Party to theConvention.

The Government of Fiji maintains the view thatArticle 15 is discriminatory in that it establishesa procedure for the receipt of petitions relatingto dependent territories whilst making nocomparable provision for States without suchterritories.

FRANCE (15)

With regard to article 4, France wishes to makeit clear that it interprets the reference madetherein to the principles of the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights and to the rightsset forth in article 5 of the Convention as


releasing the States Parties from the obligationto enact anti-discrimination legislation which isincompatible with the freedoms of opinion andexpression and of peaceful assembly andassociation guaranteed by those texts.

With regard to article 6, France declares that thequestion of remedy through tribunals is, as faras France is concerned, governed by the rules ofordinary law.

With regard to article 15, France's accession tothe Convention may not be interpreted asimplying any change in its position regardingthe resolution mentioned in that provision.

GUYANA

The Government of the Republic of Guyana donot interpret the provisions of this Conventionas imposing upon them any obligation goingbeyond the limits set by the Constitution ofGuyana or imposing upon them any obligationrequiring the introduction of judicial processesgoing beyond those provided under the sameConstitution.

HUNGARY (16)

The Hungarian People's Republic considers thatthe provisions of article 17, paragraph 1, and ofarticle 18, paragraph 1, of the Convention,barring accession to the Convention by allStates, are of a discriminating nature andcontrary to international law. The HungarianPeople's Republic maintains its general positionthat multilateral treaties of a universal charactershould, in conformity with the principles ofsovereign equality of States, be open foraccession by all States without anydiscrimination whatever.

INDIA (17)

The Government of India declare that forreference of any dispute to the InternationalCourt of Justice for decision in terms of Article22 of the International Convention on theElimination of all Forms of RacialDiscrimination, the consent of all parties to the

dispute is necessary in each individual case.

IRAQ (9)

Upon signature:

The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Republicof Iraq hereby declares that signature for and onbehalf of the Republic of Iraq of theConvention on the Elimination of All Forms ofRacial Discrimination, which was adopted bythe General Assembly of the United Nations on21 December 1965, as well as approval by theArab States of the said Convention and entryinto it by their respective governments, shall inno way signify recognition of Israel or lead toentry by the Arab States into such dealings withIsrael as may be regulated by the saidConvention.

Furthermore, the Government of the Republicof Iraq does not consider itself bound by theprovisions of article twenty-two of theConvention aforementioned and affirms itsreservation that it does not accept thecompulsory jurisdiction of the InternationalCourt of Justice provided for in the said article.

Upon ratification:

1. The acceptance and ratification of theConvention by Iraq shall in no way signifyrecognition of Israel or be conducive to entry byIraq into such dealings with Israel as areregulated by the Convention;

2. Iraq does not accept the provisions of article22 of the Convention, concerning thecompulsory jurisdiction of the InternationalCourt of Justice. The Republic of Iraq does notconsider itself to be bound by the provisions ofarticle 22 of the Convention and deems itnecessary that in all cases the approval of allparties to the dispute be secured before the caseis referred to the International Court of Justice.

ISRAEL

The State of Israel does not consider itselfbound by the provisions of article 22 of the said


Convention.

ITALY

Declaration made upon signature andconfirmed upon ratification:

(a) The positive measures, provided for in article4 of the Convention and specifically describedin subparagraphs (a) and (b) of that article,designed to eradicate all incitement to, or actsof, discrimination, are to be interpreted, as thatarticle provides, "with due regard to theprinciples embodied in the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights and the rightsexpressly set forth in article 5 of theConvention. Consequently, the obligationsderiving from the aforementioned article 4 arenot to jeopardize the right to freedom ofopinion and expression and the right to freedomof peaceful assembly and association which arelaid down in articles 19 and 20 of the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights, were reaffirmedby the General Assembly of the United Nationswhen it adopted articles 19 and 21 of theInternational Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights, and are referred to in articles 5(d) (viii)and (ix) of the Convention. In fact, the ItalianGovernment, in conformity with the obligationsresulting from Articles 55(c) and 56 of theCharter of the United Nations, remains faithfulto the principle laid down in article 29(2) of theUniversal Declaration, which provides that "inthe exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyoneshall be subject only to such limitations as aredetermined by law solely for the purpose ofsecuring due recognition and respect for therights and freedoms of others and of meetingthe just requirements of morality, public orderand the general welfare in a democratic society."

(b) Effective remedies against acts of racialdiscrimination which violate his individualrights and fundamental freedoms will be assuredto everyone, in conformity with article 6 of theConvention, by the ordinary courts within theframework of their respective jurisdiction.Claims for reparation for any damage suffered asa result of acts of racial discrimination must bebrought against the persons responsible for the

malicious or criminal acts which caused suchdamage.

JAMAICA

The Constitution of Jamaica entrenches andguarantees to every person in Jamaica thefundamental rights and freedoms of theindividual irrespective of his race or place oforigin. The Constitution prescribes judicialprocesses to be observed in the event of theviolation of any of these rights whether by theState or by a private individual. Ratification ofthe Convention by Jamaica does not imply theacceptance of obligations going beyond theconstitutional limits nor the acceptance of anyobligation to introduce judicial processesbeyond those prescribed under theConstitution.

JAPAN

Reservation:

In applying the provisions of paragraphs (a) and(b) of article 4 of the [said Convention] Japanfulfills the obligations under those provisions tothe extent that fulfillment of the obligations iscompatible with the guarantee of the rights tofreedom of assembly, association and expressionand other rights under the Constitution ofJapan, noting the phrase `with due regard to theprinciples embodied in the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights and the rightsexpressly set forth in article 5 of thisConvention' referred to in article 4.

KUWAIT (9)

In acceding to the said Convention, theGovernment of the State of Kuwait takes theview that its accession does not in any wayimply recognition of Israel, nor does it oblige itto apply the provisions of the Convention inrespect of the said country.

The Government of the State of Kuwait doesnot consider itself bound by the provisions ofarticle 22 of the Convention, under which anydispute between two or more States Parties with

1 0Making Multicultural Australia International Convention on the Elimination ofAll Forms of Racial Discrimination: Signatories

respect to the interpretation or application ofthe Convention is, at the request of any party tothe dispute, to be referred to the InternationalCourt of Justice for decision, and it states that,in each individual case, the consent of all partiesto such a dispute is necessary for referring thedispute to the International Court of Justice.

LEBANON

The Republic of Lebanon does not consideritself bound by the provisions of article 22 ofthe Convention, under which any disputebetween two or more States Parties with respectto the interpretation or application of theConvention is, at the request of any party to thedispute, to be referred to the InternationalCourt of Justice for decision, and it states that,in each individual case, the consent of all Statesparties to such a dispute is necessary forreferring the dispute to the International Courtof Justice.

LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA (9)

(a) The Kingdom of Libya does not consideritself bound by the provisions of article 22 ofthe Convention, under which any disputebetween two or more States Parties with respectto the interpretation or application of theConvention is, at the request of any of theparties to the dispute, to be referred to theInternational Court of Justice for decision, andit states that, in each individual case, theconsent of all parties to such a dispute isnecessary for referring the dispute to theInternational Court of Justice.

(b) It is understood that the accession to thisConvention does not mean in any way arecognition of Israel by the Government of theKingdom of Libya. Furthermore, no treatyrelations will arise between the Kingdom ofLibya and Israel.

MADAGASCAR

The Government of the Malagasy Republic doesnot consider itself bound by the provisions ofarticle 22 of the Convention, under which any

dispute between two or more States Parties withrespect to the interpretation or application ofthe Convention is, at the request of any of theparties to the dispute, to be referred to theInternational Court of Justice for decision, andstates that, in each individual case, the consentof all parties to such a dispute is necessary forreferral of the dispute to the InternationalCourt.

MALTA

Declaration made upon signature andconfirmed upon ratification :

The Government of Malta wishes to state itsunderstanding of certain articles in theConvention.

It interprets article 4 as requiring a party to theConvention to adopt further measures in thefields covered by subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c)of that article should it consider, with dueregard to the principles embodied in theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights and therights set forth in article 5 of the Convention,that the need arises to enact 'ad hoc' legislation,in addition to or variation of existing law andpractice to bring to an end any act of racialdiscrimination.

Further, the Government of Malta interprets therequirements in article 6 concerning 'reparationor satisfaction' as being fulfilled if one or otherof these forms of redress is made available andinterprets 'satisfaction' as including any form ofredress effective to bring the discriminatoryconduct to an end.

MONACO

Reservation regarding article 2, paragraph 1:

Monaco reserves the right to apply its own legalprovisions concerning the admission offoreigners to the labour market of thePrincipality.


Reservation regarding article 4:

Monaco interprets the reference in that articleto the principles of the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights, and to the rights enumerated inarticle 5 of the Convention as releasing StatesParties from the obligation to promulgaterepressive laws which are incompatible withfreedom of opinion and expression and freedomof peaceful assembly and association, which areguaranteed by those instruments.

MONGOLIA (18)

The Mongolian People's Republic states that theprovision in article 17, paragraph 1, of theConvention whereby a number of States aredeprived of the opportunity to become Partiesto the Convention is of a discriminatory nature,and it holds that, in accordance with theprinciple of the sovereign equality of States, theConvention on the Elimination of All Forms ofRacial Discrimination should be open toparticipation by all interested States withoutdiscrimination or restriction of any kind.

MOROCCO

The Kingdom of Morocco does not consideritself bound by the provisions of article 22 ofthe Convention, under which any disputebetween two or more States Parties with respectto the interpretation or application of theConvention is, at the request of any of theparties to the dispute, to be referred to theInternational Court of Justice for decision. TheKingdom of Morocco states that, in eachindividual case, the consent of all parties to sucha dispute is necessary for referring the dispute tothe International Court of Justice.

MOZAMBIQUE

Reservation:

The People's Republic of Mozambique does notconsider itself to be bound by the provision ofarticle 22 and wishes to restate that for thesubmission of any dispute to the InternationalCourt of Justice for decision in terms of the said

article, the consent of all parties to such adispute is necessary in each individual case.

NEPAL

The Constitution of Nepal contains provisionsfor the protection of individual rights, includingthe right to freedom of speech and expression,the right to form unions and associations notmotivated by party politics and the right tofreedom of professing his/her own religion; andnothing in the Convention shall be deemed torequire or to authorize legislation or otheraction by Nepal incompatible with theprovisions of the Constitution of Nepal.

His Majesty's Government interprets article 4 ofthe said Convention as requiring a Party to theConvention to adopt further legislative measuresin the fields covered by subparagraphs (a), (b)and (c) of that article only in so far as HisMajesty's Government may consider, with dueregard to the principles embodied in theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights, thatsome legislative addition to, or variation of,existing law and practice in those fields isnecessary for the attainment of the end specifiedin the earlier part of article 4. His Majesty'sGovernment interprets the requirement inarticle 6 concerning 'reparation or satisfaction'as being fulfilled if one or other of these formsof redress is made available; and furtherinterprets 'satisfaction' as including any form ofredress effective to bring the discriminatoryconduct to an end.

His Majesty's Government does not consideritself bound by the provision of article 22 of theConvention under which any dispute betweentwo or more States Parties with respect to theinterpretation or application of the Conventionis, at the request of any of the parties to thedispute, to be referred to the InternationalCourt of Justice for decision."

PAPUA NEW GUINEA (12)

Reservation:

The Government of Papua New Guinea


interprets article 4 of the Convention asrequiring a party to the Convention to adoptfurther legislative measures in the areas coveredby subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that articleonly in so far as it may consider with due regardto the principles contained in the UniversalDeclaration set out in Article 5 of theConvention that some legislative addition to, orvariation of existing law and practice, isnecessary to give effect to the provisions ofArticle 4. In addition, the Constitution ofPapua New Guinea guarantees certainfundamental rights and freedoms to all personsirrespective of their race or place of origin. TheConstitution also provides for judicialprotection of these rights and freedoms.Acceptance of this Convention does nottherefore indicate the acceptance of obligationsby the Government of Papua New Guineawhich go beyond those provided by theConstitution, nor does it indicate theacceptance of any obligation to introducejudicial process beyond that provided by theConstitution. (The reservation was circulated bythe Secretary-General on 22 February 1982.)

POLAND

The Polish People's Republic does not consideritself bound by the provisions of article 22 ofthe Convention.

The Polish People's Republic considers that theprovisions of article 17, paragraph 1, and article18, paragraph 1, of the InternationalConvention on the Elimination of All Forms ofRacial Discrimination, which make itimpossible for many States to become parties tothe said Convention, are of a discriminatorynature and are incompatible with the object andpurpose of that Convention.

The Polish People's Republic considers that, inaccordance with the principle of the sovereignequality of States, the said Convention shouldbe open for participation by all States withoutany discrimination or restrictions whatsoever.

ROMANIA

The Socialist Republic of Romania declares thatit does not consider itself bound by theprovisions of article 22 of the InternationalConvention on the Elimination of All Forms ofRacial Discrimination, whereby any disputebetween two or more States Parties with respectto the interpretation or application of theConvention which is not settled by negotiationor by the procedures expressly provided for inthe Convention shall, at the request of any ofthe parties to the dispute, be referred to theInternational Court of Justice.

The Socialist Republic of Romania considersthat such disputes may be referred to theInternational Court of Justice only with theconsent of all parties to the dispute in eachindividual case.

The Council of State of the Socialist Republicof Romania declares that the provisions ofarticles 17 and 18 of the InternationalConvention on the Elimination of All Forms ofRacial Discrimination are not in accordancewith the principle that multilateral treaties, theaims and objectives of which concern the worldcommunity as a whole, should be open toparticipation by all States.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION (10)

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics statesthat the provision in article17, paragraph 1, ofthe Convention on the Elimination of AllForms of Racial Discrimination whereby anumber of States are deprived of theopportunity to become Parties to theConvention is of a discriminatory nature, andhold that, in accordance with the principle ofthe sovereign equality of States, the Conventionshould be open to participation by all interestedStates without discrimination or restriction ofany kind.

RWANDA

The Rwandese Republic does not consider itself


as bound by article 22 of the Convention.

SLOVAKIA (4)

SPAIN

With a reservation in respect of the whole ofarticle 22 (jurisdiction of the InternationalCourt of Justice).

SWITZERLAND

Reservation concerning article 4:

Switzerland reserves the right to take thelegislative measures necessary for theimplementation of article 4, taking due accountof freedom of opinion and freedom ofassociation, provided for inter alia in theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights.

Reservation concerning article 2, paragraph 1(a):

Switzerland reserves the right to apply its legalprovisions concerning the admission offoreigners to the Swiss market.

SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC (9)

1. The accession of the Syrian Arab Republic tothis Convention shall in no way signifyrecognition of Israel or entry into a relationshipwith it regarding any matter regulated by thesaid Convention.

2. The Syrian Arab Republic does not consideritself bound by the provisions of article 22 ofthe Convention, under which any disputebetween two or more States Parties with respectto the interpretation or application of theConvention is, at the request of any of theParties to the dispute, to be referred to theInternational Court of Justice for decision. TheSyrian Arab Republic states that, in eachindividual case, the consent of all parties to sucha dispute is necessary for referring the dispute tothe International Court of Justice.

TONGA (19)

Reservation:

To the extent, [. . .], that any law relating toland in Tonga which prohibits or restricts thealienation of land by the indigenous inhabitantsmay not fulfil the obligations referred to inarticle 5(d) (v), [. . .], the Kingdom of Tongareserves the right not to apply the Conventionto Tonga.

Declaration:

Secondly, the Kingdom of Tonga wishes to stateits understanding of certain articles in theConvention. It interprets article 4 as requiring aparty to the Convention to adopt furtherlegislative measures in the fields covered bysubparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that articleonly in so far as it may consider with due regardto the principles embodied in the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights and the rightsexpressly set forth in article 5 of the Convention(in particular the right to freedom of opinionand expression and the right to freedom ofpeaceful assembly and association) that somelegislative addition to or variation of existinglaw and practice in those fields is necessary forthe attainment of the end specified in the earlierpart of article 4. Further, the Kingdom of Tongainterprets the requirement in article 6concerning 'reparation or satisfaction' as beingfulfilled if one or other of these forms of redressis made available and interprets 'satisfaction' asincluding any form of redress effective to bringthe discriminatory conduct to an end. Inaddition it interprets article 20 and the otherrelated provisions of Part III of the Conventionas meaning that if a reservation is not acceptedthe State making the reservation does notbecome a Party to the Convention.

Lastly, the Kingdom of Tonga maintains itsposition in regard to article 15. In its view thisarticle is discriminatory in that it establishes aprocedure for the receipt of petitions relating todependent territories while making nocomparable provision for States without such


territories. Moreover, the article purports toestablish a procedure applicable to thedependent territories of States whether or notthose States have become parties to theConvention. His Majesty's Government havedecided that the Kingdom of Tonga shouldaccede to the Convention, these objectionsnotwithstanding because of the importance theyattach to the Convention as a whole.

UKRAINE (10)

The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic statesthat the provision in article 17, paragraph 1, ofthe Convention on the Elimination of AllForms of Racial Discrimination whereby anumber of States are deprived of theopportunity to become Parties to theConvention is of a discriminatory nature, andhold that, in accordance with the principle ofthe sovereign equality of States, the Conventionshould be open to participation by all interestedStates without discrimination or restriction ofany kind.

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES (9)

The accession of the United Arab Emirates tothis Convention shall in no way amount torecognition of nor the establishment of anytreaty relations with Israel.

UNITED KINGDOM OF GREATBRITAIN AND NORTHERNIRELAND

Upon signature:Subject to the following reservation andinterpretative statements:

First, in the present circumstances deriving fromthe usurpation of power in Rhodesia by theillegal régime, the United Kingdom must signsubject to a reservation of the right not to applythe Convention to Rhodesia unless and untilthe United Kingdom informs the Secretary-General of the United Nations that it is in aposition to ensure that the obligations imposedby the Convention in respect of that territorycan be fully implemented.

Secondly, the United Kingdom wishes to stateits understanding of certain articles in theConvention. It interprets article 4 as requiring aparty to the Convention to adopt furtherlegislative measures in the fields covered bysubparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that articleonly in so far as it may consider with due regardto the principles embodied in the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights and the rightsexpressly set forth in article 5 of the Convention(in particular the right to freedom of opinionand expression and the right to freedom ofpeaceful assembly and association) that somelegislative addition to or variation of existinglaw and practice in those fields is necessary forthe attainment of the end specified in the earlierpart of article 4. Further, the United Kingdominterprets the requirement in article 6concerning 'reparation or satisfaction' as beingfulfilled if one or other of these forms of redressis made available and interprets 'satisfaction' asincluding any form of redress effective to bringthe discriminatory conduct to an end. Inaddition it interprets article 20 and the otherrelated provisions of Part III of the Conventionas meaning that if a reservation is not acceptedthe State making the reservation does notbecome a Party to the Convention.

Lastly, the United Kingdom maintains itsposition in regard to article 15. In its view thisarticle is discriminatory in that it establishes aprocedure for the receipt of petitions relating todependent territories while making nocomparable provision for States without suchterritories. Moreover, the article purports toestablish a procedure applicable to thedependent territories of States whether or notthose States have become parties to theConvention. Her Majesty's Government havedecided that the United Kingdom should signthe Convention, these objectionsnotwithstanding, because of the importancethey attach to the Convention as a whole.

Upon ratification:

First, the reservation and interpretativestatements made by the United Kingdom at thetime of signature of the Convention are


maintained.

Secondly, the United Kingdom does not regardthe Commonwealth Immigrants Acts, 1962 and1968, or their application, as involving anyracial discrimination within the meaning ofparagraph 1 of article 1, or any other provisionof the Convention, and fully reserves its right tocontinue to apply those Acts.

Lastly, to the extent if any, that any law relatingto election in Fiji may not fulfil the obligationsreferred to in article 5(c), that any law relatingto land in Fiji which prohibits or restricts thealienation of land by the indigenous inhabitantsmay not fulfil the obligations referred to inarticle 5(d) (v), or that the school system of Fijimay not fulfil the obligations referred to inarticles 2, 3 or 5(e) (v), the United Kingdomreserves the right not to apply the Conventionto Fiji.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Upon signature:

The Constitution of the United States containsprovisions for the protection of individualrights, such as the right of free speech, andnothing in the Convention shall be deemed torequire or to authorize legislation or otheraction by the United States of Americaincompatible with the provisions of theConstitution of the United States of America.

Upon ratification:

I. The Senate's advice and consent is subject tothe following reservations:

(1) That the Constitution and laws of theUnited States contain extensive protections ofindividual freedom of speech, expression andassociation. Accordingly, the United States doesnot accept any obligation under thisConvention, in particular under articles 4 and7, to restrict those rights, through the adoptionof legislation or any other measures, to theextent that they are protected by theConstitution and laws of the United States.

(2) That the Constitution and laws of theUnited States establish extensive protectionsagainst discrimination, reaching significant areasof non-governmental activity. Individual privacyand freedom from governmental interference inprivate conduct, however, are also recognized asamong the fundamental values which shape ourfree and democratic society. The United Statesunderstands that the identification of the rightsprotected under the Convention by reference inarticle 1 to fields of 'public life' reflects a similardistinction between spheres of public conductthat are customarily the subject of governmentalregulation, and spheres of private conduct thatare not. To the extent, however, that theConvention calls for a broader regulation ofprivate conduct, the United States does notaccept any obligation under this Convention toenact legislation or take other measures underparagraph (1) of article 2, subparagraphs (1) (c)and (d) of article 2, article 3 and article 5 withrespect to private conduct except as mandatedby the Constitution and laws of the UnitedStates.

(3) That with reference to article 22 of theConvention, before any dispute to which theUnited States is a party may be submitted to thejurisdiction of the International Court of Justiceunder this article, the specific consent of theUnited States is required in each case.

II. The Senate's advice and consent is subject tothe following understanding, which shall applyto the obligations of the United States underthis Convention:

That the United States understands that thisConvention shall be implemented by theFederal Government to the extent that itexercises jurisdiction over the matters coveredtherein, and otherwise by the state and localgovernments. To the extent that state and localgovernments exercise jurisdiction over suchmatters, the Federal Government shall, asnecessary, take appropriate measures to ensurethe fulfilment of this Convention.

III. The Senate's advice and consent is subjectto the following declaration:

1 6Making Multicultural Austral ia International Convention on the Elimination ofAll Forms of Racial Discrimination: Signatories

That the United States declares that theprovisions of the Convention are not self-executing.

VIET NAM (12)

Declaration:

(1) The Government of the Socialist Republic ofViet Nam declares that the provisions of article17(1) and of article 18(1) of the Conventionwhereby a number of States are deprived of theopportunity of becoming Parties to the saidConvention are of a discriminatory nature andit considers that, in accordance with theprinciple of the sovereign equality of States, theConvention should be open to participation byall States without discrimination or restrictionof any kind.

Reservation:

(2) The Government of the Socialist Republic ofViet Nam does not consider itself bound by theprovisions of article 22 of the Convention andholds that, for any dispute with regard to theinterpretation or application of the Conventionto be brought before the International Court ofJustice, the consent of all parties to the disputeis necessary. (The reservation was circulated bythe Secretary-General on 10 August 1982.)

YEMEN (8,9)

The accession of the People's DemocraticRepublic of Yemen to this Convention shall inno way signify recognition of Israel or entry intoa relationship with it regarding any matterregulated by the said Convention.

The People's Democratic Republic of Yemendoes not consider itself bound by the provisionsof Article 22 of the Convention, under whichany dispute between two or more States Partieswith respect to the interpretation or applicationof the Convention is, at the request of any ofthe parties to the dispute, to be referred to theInternational Court of Justice for decision, andstates that, in each individual case, the consentof all parties to such a dispute is necessary for

referral of the dispute to the International Courtof Justice.

The People's Democratic Republic of Yemenstates that the provisions of Article 17,paragraph 1, and Article 18, paragraph 1, of theConvention on the Elimination of All Forms ofRacial Discrimination whereby a number ofStates are deprived of the opportunity tobecome Parties to the Convention is of adiscriminatory nature, and holds that, inaccordance with the principle of the sovereignequality of States, the Convention should beopened to participation by all interested Stateswithout discrimination or restriction of anykind."

Objections

(Unless otherwise indicated, the objections weremade upon ratification, accession or succession.)

AUSTRALIA

8 August 1989

In accordance with article 20(2), Australiaobjects to [the reservations made by Yemen]which it considers impermissible as beingincompatible with the object and purpose of theConvention.

BELARUS

29 December 1983

The ratification of the above-mentioned In t e r n-ational Convention by the so-called "Gove r n m e n tof Democratic Kampuchea" - the Pol Po t - Ie n gSa ry clique of hangmen ove rt h rown by theKampuchean people - is completely unlawfuland has no legal force. There is only one Stateof Kampuchea in the world - The Pe o p l e ' sRepublic of Kampuchea, recognized by a largenumber of countries. All power in this State isentirely in the hands of its only lawfulGovernment, the Government of the People'sRepublic of Kampuchea, which has theexclusive right to act in the name of Kampuchea

1 7Making Multicultural Austral ia International Convention on the Elimination ofAll Forms of Racial Discrimination: Signatories

in the international arena, including the right toratify international agreements prepared withinthe United Nations.

The farce involving the ratification of the above-mentioned International Convention by a cliquerepresenting no one mocks the norms of lawand morality and blasphemes the memory ofmillions of Kampuchean victims of the genocidecommitted by the Pol Pot-Ieng Sary régime.

BELGIUM

8 August l989

With regard to reservations made by Yemenconcerning article 5(c) and article 5(d) (iv), (vi)and (vii):

These reservations are incompatible with theobject and purpose of the Convention andconsequently are not permitted pursuant toarticle 20, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

CANADA

10 August 1989


The effect of these reservations would be toallow racial discrimination in respect of certainof the rights enumerated in Article 5. Since theobjective of the International Convention onthe Elimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination, as stated in its Preamble, is toeliminate racial discrimination in all its formsand manifestations, the Government of Canadabelieves that the reservations made by theYemen Arab Republic are incompatible with theobject and purpose of the InternationalConvention. Moreover, the Government ofCanada believes that the principle of non-discrimination is generally accepted andrecognized in international law and therefore isbinding on all states.

CZECH REPUBLIC (4)

DENMARK

10 July 1989


Article 5 contains undertakings, in compliancewith the fundamental obligations laid down inarticle 2 of the Convention, to prohibit and toeliminate racial discrimination in all its formsand to guarantee the right of everyone, withoutdistinction as to race, colour, or national orethnic origin, to equality before the law, notablyin the enjoyment of the rights enumerated inthe article.

The reservations made by the Government ofYemen are incompatible with the object andpurpose of the Convention and the reservationsare consequently impermissible according toarticle 20, paragraph 2 of the Convention. Inaccordance with article 20, paragraph 1 of theConvention the Government of Denmarktherefore formally objects to these reservations.This objection does not have the effect ofpreventing the Convention from entering intoforce between Denmark and Yemen, and thereservations cannot alter or modify in anyrespect, the obligations arising from theConvention.

ETHIOPIA

25 January 1984

The Provisional Military Government ofSocialist Ethiopia should like to reiterate thatthe Government of the People's Republic ofKampuchea is the sole legitimate representativeof the People of Kampuchea and as such italone has the authority to act on behalf ofKampuchea.

The Provisional Military Government ofSocialist Ethiopia, therefore, considers the


ratification of the so-called 'Government ofDemocratic Kampuchea' to be null and void.

FINLAND

7 July 1989


The Government of Finland formally, and inaccordance with article 20(2) of theConvention, objects to the reser vations made byYemen to the above provisions.

In the first place, the reservations concernmatters which are of fundamental importance inthe Convention. The first paragraph of article 5clearly brings this out. According to it, theParties have undertaken to guarantee the rightslisted in that article "In compliance withfundamental obligations laid down in article 2of the Convention". Clearly, provisionsprohibiting racial discrimination in the grantingof such fundamental political rights and civilliberties as the right to participate in public life,to marry and choose a spouse, to inherit and toenjoy freedom of thought, conscience andreligion are central in a convention against racialdiscrimination. Therefore, the reservations areincompatible with the object and purpose of theConvention, as specified in paragraph 20(2)thereof and in article 19(c) of the ViennaConvention on the Law of Treaties.

Moreover, it is the view of the Government ofFinland that it would be unthinkable thatmerely by making a reservation to the saidprovisions, a State could achieve the liberty tostart discriminatory practices on the grounds ofrace, colour, or national or ethnic origin inregard to such fundamental political rights andcivil liberties as the right to participate in theconduct of public affairs, the right of marriageand choice of spouse, the right of inheritanceand the freedom of thought, conscience andreligion. Any racial discrimination in respect ofthose general principles of human rights law asreflected in the Universal Declaration on

Human Rights and the practice of States andinternational organizations. By making areservation a State cannot contract out fromuniversally binding human rights standards.

For the above reasons, the Government ofFinland notes that the reservations made byYemen are devoid of legal effect. However, theGovernment of Finland does not consider thatthis fact is an obstacle to the entry into force ofthe Convention in respect of Yemen.

FRANCE

15 May 1984

The Government of the French Republic, whichdoes not recognize the coalition government ofthe Democratic Cambodia, declares that theinstrument of ratification by the coalitiongovernment of Democratic Cambodia of the[International] Convention on the Eliminationof All Forms of Racial Discrimination, openedfor signature at New York on 7 March 1966, iswithout effect.

20 September 1989


France considers that the reservations made bythe Yemen Arab Republic to the InternationalConvention on the Elimination of All Forms ofRacial Discrimination are not valid as beingincompatible with the object and purpose of theConvention.

Such objection is not an obstacle to the entryinto force of the said Convention betweenFrance and the Yemen Arab Republic.

GERMANY

8 August 1989



These reservations relate to the basic obligationsof States Parties to the Convention to prohibitand eliminate racial discrimination in all itsforms and to guarantee the right of everyone toequality before the law and include theenjoyment of such fundamental political andcivil rights as the right to take part in theconduct of public life, the right to marriage andchoice of spouse, the right to inherit and theright to freedom of thought, conscience andreligion. As a result, the reservations made byYemen are incompatible with the object andpurpose of the Convention within the meaningof article 20, paragraph 2 thereof.

ITALY

7 August 1989

The Government of the Republic of Italy raisesan objection to the reservations entered by theGovernment of the Arab Republic of Yemen toarticle 5 [(c) and (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii)] of theabove-mentioned Convention."

MEXICO

11 August 1989


The Government of the United Mexican Stateshas concluded that, in view of article 20 of theConvention, the reservation must be deemedinvalid, as it is incompatible with the object andpurpose of the Convention.

Said reservation, if implemented would result indiscrimination to the detriment of a certainsector of the population and, at the same time,would violate the rights established in articles 2,16 and 18 of the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights of 1948.

The objection of the United Mexican States tothe reservation in question should not beinterpreted as an impediment to the entry intoforce of the Convention of 1966 between the

United States of Mexico and the Government ofYe m e n .

MONGOLIA

7 June 1984

The Government of the Mongolian People'sRepublic considers that only the People'sRevolutionary Council of Kampuchea as thesole authentic and lawful representative of theKampuchean people has the right to assumeinternational obligations on behalf of theKampuchean people. Therefore the Governmentof the Mongolian People's Republic considersthat the ratification of the InternationalConvention on the Elimination of All Forms ofRacial Discrimination by the so-calledDemocratic Kampuchea, a regime that ceased toexist as a result of the people's revolution inKampuchea, is null and void.

NETHERLANDS

25 July 1989


The Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to theabove-mentioned reservations, as they areincompatible with object and purpose of theConvention.

These objections are not an obstacle for theentry into force of this Convention between theKingdom of the Netherlands and Yemen.

NEW ZEALAND

4 August 1989


The New Zealand Government is of the viewthat those provisions contain undertakingswhich are themselves fundamental to the


Convention. Accordingly it considers that thereservations purportedly made by Yemenrelating to political and civil rights areincompatible with the object and purpose of theTreaty within the terms of the article 19(c) ofthe Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The Government of New Zealand advisestherefore under article 20 of the Convention onthe Elimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination that it does not accept thereservations made by Yemen.

NORWAY

28 July 1989


The Government of Norway hereby enters itsformal objection to the reservations made byYemen.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

28 December 1983

The ratification of the above-mentionedInternational Convention by the so-called"Government of Democratic Kampuchea " - thePol Pot clique of hangmen overthrown by theKampuchean people - is completely unlawfuland has no legal force. Only the representativesauthorized by the State Council of the People'sRepublic of Kampuchea can act in the name ofKampuchea. There is only one State ofKampuchea in the world - the People's Republicof Kampuchea, which has been recognized by alarge number of countries. All power in thisState is entirely in the hands of its only lawfulGovernment, the Government of the People'sRepublic of Kampuchea, which has theexclusive right to act in the name of Kampucheain the international arena, including the right toratify international agreements prepared withinthe United Nations.

Nor should one fail to observe that the farce

involving the ratification of the above-mentioned International Convention by a cliquerepresenting no one mocks the norms of lawand morality and is a direct insult to thememory of millions of Kampuchean victims ofthe genocide committed against theKampuchean people by the Pol Pot-Sary régime.The entire international community is familiarwith the bloody crimes of that puppet clique.

SLOVAKIA (4)

SWEDEN

5 July 1989


Article 5 contains undertakings, in compliancewith the fundamental obligations laid down inarticle 2 of the Convention, to prohibit and toeliminate racial discrimination in all its formsand to guarantee the right of everyone, withoutdistinction as to race, colour, or national orethnic origin, to equality before the law, notablyin the enjoyment of the rights enumerated inthe article.

The Government of Sweden has come to theconclusion that the reservations made by Yemenare incompatible with the object and purpose ofthe Convention and therefore are impermissibleaccording to article 20, paragraph 2 of theConvention. For this reason the Government ofSweden objects to these reservations. Thisobjection does not have the effect of preventingthe Convention from entering into forcebetween Sweden and Yemen, and thereservations cannot alter or modify, in anyrespect, the obligations arising from theConvention.

UKRAINE

17 January 1984

The ratification of the above-mentionedinternational Convention by the Pol Pot-Ieng


Sary clique, which is guilty of the annihilationof millions of Kampucheans and which wasoverthrown in 1979 by the Kampucheanpeople, is thoroughly illegal and has no juridicalforce. There is only one Kampuchean State inthe World, namely, the People's Republic ofKampuchea. All authority in this State is vestedwholly in its sole legitimate government, theGovernment of the People's Republic ofKampuchea. This Government alone has theexclusive right to speak on behalf of Kampucheaat the international level, while the supremeorgan of State power, the State Council of thePeople's Republic of Kampuchea has theexclusive right to ratify international agreementsdrawn up within the framework of the UnitedNations.

UNITED KINGDOM OF GREATBRITAIN AND NORTHERNIRELAND

4 August 1989

The Government of the United Kingdom ofGreat Britain and Northern Ireland do notaccept the reservations made by the Yemen ArabRepublic to article 5(c) and (d) (iv), (vi) and(vii) of the International Convention on theElimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination.

VIET NAM

29 February 1984

The Government of the Socialist Republic ofViet Nam considers that only the Governmentof the People's Republic of Kampuchea, whichis the sole genuine and legitimate representativeof the Kampuchean People, is empowered to actin their behalf to sign, ratify or accede tointernational conventions.

The Government of the Socialist Republic ofViet Nam rejects as null and void theratification of the above-mentionedinternational Convention by the so-called"Democratic Kampuchea" - a genocidal regimeoverthrown by the Kampuchean people since

January 7, 1979.

Furthermore, the ratification of the Conventionby a genocidal regime, which massacred morethan 3 million Kampuchean people in grossviolation of fundamental standards of moralityand international laws on human rights, simplyplays down the significance of the Conventionand jeopardises the prestige of the UnitedNations.

Declarations

recognizing the competence of the Committeeon the Elimination of Racial Discrimination inaccordance with article 14 of the Convention.(20)

ALGERIA

12 September 1989

The Algerian Government declares, pursuant toarticle 14 of the Convention, that it recognizesthe competence of the Committee to receiveand consider communications from individualsor groups of individuals within its jurisdictionclaiming to be victims of a violation by it of anyof the rights set forth in the Convention.

AUSTRALIA

28 January 1993

The Government of Australia hereby declaresthat it recognises, for and on behalf of Australia,the competence of the Committee to receiveand consider communications from individualsor groups of individuals within its jurisdictionclaiming to be victims of a violation by Australiaof any of the rights set forth in the aforesaidConvention.

BULGARIA

12 May 1993

The Republic of Bulgaria declares that itrecognizes the competence of the Committee on


the Elimination of Racial Discrimination toreceive and consider communications fromindividuals or groups of individuals within itsjurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violationby the Republic of Bulgaria of any of the rightsset forth in this Convention.

CHILE

18 May 1994

In accordance with article 14(1) of theInternational Convention on the Elimination ofAll Forms of Racial Discrimination, theGovernment of Chile declares that it recognizesthe competence of the Committee on theElimination of Racial Discrimination to receiveand consider communications from individualsor groups of individuals within its jurisdictionclaiming to be victims of a violation by theGovernment of Chile of any of the rights setforth in this Convention.

COSTA RICA

8 January 1974

Costa Rica recognizes the competence of theCommittee on the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination established under article 8 of theConvention on the Elimination of All Forms ofRacial Discrimination, in accordance witharticle 14 of the Convention, to receive andconsider communications from individuals orgroups of individuals within its jurisdictionclaiming to be victims of a violation by the Stateof any of the rights set forth in the Convention.

CYPRUS

The Republic of Cyprus recognizes thecompetence of the Committee on theElimination of Racial Discriminationestablished under article 14(1) of [theConvention] to receive and considercommunications from individuals or groups ofindividuals within its jurisdiction claiming to bevictims of a violation by the Republic of Cyprusof any of the rights set forth in this Convention.

DENMARK

11 October 1985

Denmark recognizes the competence of theCommittee on the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination to receive and considercommunications from individuals or groups ofindividuals within Danish jurisdiction claimingto be victims of a violation by Denmark of anyof the rights set forth in the Convention, withthe reservation that the Committee shall notconsider any communications unless it hasascertained that the same matter has not been,and is not being, examined under anotherprocedure of international investigation orsettlement.

ECUADOR

18 March 1977

The State of Ecuador, by virtue of Article 14 ofthe International Convention on theElimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination, recognizes the competence ofthe Committee on the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination to receive and considercommunications from individuals or groups ofindividuals within its jurisdiction claiming to bevictims of a violation of the rights set forth inthe above-mentioned Convention.

FINLAND

16 November 1994

Finland recognizes the competence of theCommittee on the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination to receive and considercommunications from individuals or groups ofindividuals within the jurisdiction of Finlandclaiming to be victims of a violation by Finlandof any of the rights set forth in the saidConvention, with the reservation that theCommittee shall not consider anycommunication from an individual or a groupof individuals unless the Committee hasascertained that the same matter is not being


examined or has not been examined underanother procedure of international investigationor settlement.

FRANCE

16 August 1982

[The Government of the French Republicdeclares], in accordance with article14 of theInternational Convention on the Elimination ofall Forms of Racial Discrimination opened forsignature on 7 March 1966, [that it] recognizesthe competence of the Committee on theElimination of Racial Discrimination to receiveand consider communications from individualsor groups of individuals within Frenchjurisdiction that either by reason of acts oromissions, events or deeds occurring after 15August 1982, or by reason of a decisionconcerning the acts or omissions, events ordeeds after the said date, would complain ofbeing victims of a violation, by the FrenchRepublic, of one of the rights mentioned in theConvention.

HUNGARY

13 September 1989

The Hungarian People's Republic herebyrecognizes the competence of the Committeeestablished by the International Convention onthe Elimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination provided for in paragraph 1 ofarticle 14 of the Convention.

ICELAND

10 August 1981

[The Government of Iceland declares] inaccordance with article 14 of the InternationalConvention on the Elimination of All Forms ofRacial Discrimination which was opened forsignature in New York on 7 March 1966, thatIceland recognizes the competence of theCommittee on the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination to receive and considercommunications from individuals or groups of

individuals within the jurisdiction of Icelandclaiming to be victims of a violation by Icelandof any of the rights set forth in the Convention,with the reservation that the Committee shallnot consider any communication from anindividual or group of individuals unless theCommittee has ascertained that the same matteris not being examined or has not been examinedunder another procedure of internationalinvestigation or settlement.

ITALY

5 May 1978

With reference to article 14, paragraph 1, of theInternational Convention on the Elimination ofAll Forms of Racial Discrimination, opened forsignature at New York on 7 March 1966, theGovernment of the Italian Republic recognizesthe competence of the Committee on theElimination of Racial Discrimination,established by the aforementioned Convention,to receive and consider communications fromindividuals or groups of individuals withinItalian jurisdiction claiming to be victims of aviolation by Italy of any of the rights set forth inthe Convention.

The Government of the Italian Republicrecognizes that competence on theunderstanding that the Committee on theElimination of Racial Discrimination shall notconsider any communication withoutascertaining that the same matter is not beingconsidered or has not already been consideredby another international body of investigationor settlement.

NETHERLANDS

In accordance with article 14, paragraph 1, ofthe Convention on the Elimination of AllForms of Racial Discrimination concluded atNew York on 7 March 1966, the Kingdom ofthe Netherlands recognizes, for the Kingdom inEurope, Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles,the competence of the Committee for theElimination of Racial Discrimination to receiveand consider communications from individuals


or groups of individuals within its jurisdictionclaiming to be victims of a violation, by theKingdom of the Netherlands, of any of therights set forth in the above-mentionedConvention.

NORWAY

23 January 1976

The Norwegian Government recognizes thecompetence of the Committee on theElimination of Racial Discrimination to receiveand consider communications from individualsor groups of individuals within the jurisdictionof Norway claiming to be victims of a violationby Norway of any of the rights set forth in theInternational Convention of 21 December 1965on the Elimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination according to article 14 of thesaid Convention, with the reser vation that theCommittee shall not consider anycommunication from an individual or group ofindividuals unless the Committee hasascertained that the same matter is not beingexamined or has not been examined underanother procedure of international investigationor settlement.

PERU

27 November 1984

[The Government of the Republic of Perudeclares] that, in accordance with its policy offull respect for human rights and fundamentalfreedoms, without distinctions as to race, sex,language or religion, and with the aim ofstrengthening the international instruments onthe subject, Peru recognizes the competence ofthe Committee on the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination to receive and considercommunications from individuals or groups ofindividuals within its jurisdiction, who claim tobe victims of violations of any of the rights setforth in the Convention on the Elimination ofAll Forms of Racial Discrimination, inconformity with the provisions of article 14 ofthe Convention.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

1 October 1991

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declaresthat it recognizes the competence of theCommittee on the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination to receive and considercommunications, in respect of situations andevents occurring after the adoption of thepresent declaration, from individuals or groupsof individuals within the jurisdiction of theUSSR claiming to be victims of a violation bythe USSR of any of the rights set forth in theConvention.

SENEGAL

3 December 1982

In accordance with [article 14], the Governmentof Senegal declares that it recognizes thecompetence of the Committee (on theElimination of Racial Discrimination) to receiveand consider communications from individualswithin its jurisdiction claiming to be victims ofa violation by Senegal of any of the rights setforth in the Convention on the Elimination ofAll Forms of Racial Discrimination.

SLOVAKIA

17 March 1995

The Slovak Republic, pursuant to article 14 ofthe Convention, recognizes the competence ofthe Committee on the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination to receive and considercommunications from individuals or groups ofindividuals within its jurisdiction claiming to bevictims of a violation of any of the rights setforth in the Convention.

SWEDEN

Sweden recognizes the competence of theCommittee on the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination to receive and considercommunications from individuals or groups of


individuals within the jurisdiction of Swedenclaiming to be victims of a violation by Swedenof any of the rights set forth in the Convention,with the reservation that the Committee shallnot consider any communication from anindividual or a group of individuals unless theCommittee has ascertained that the same matteris not being examined or has not been examinedunder another procedure of internationalinvestigation or settlement.

UKRAINE

28 July 1992

In accordance with article 14 of theInternational Convention on the Elimination ofAll forms of Racial Discrimination, Ukrainedeclares that it recognizes the competence of theCommittee on the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination to receive and considercommunications from individuals or groups ofindividuals [within its jurisdiction] claiming tobe victims of a violation by [it] of any of therights set forth in the Convention.

URUGUAY

11 September 1972

The Government of Uruguay recognizes thecompetence of the Committee on theElimination of Racial Discrimination, underarticle 14 of the Convention.

Notes

(1) Article 19 of the Convention providesthat the Convention shall enter intoforce on the thirtieth day after the dateof deposit with the Secretary-Generalof the United Nations of the twenty-seventh instrument of ratification orinstrument of accession. On 5December 1968, the Government ofPoland deposited the twenty-seventhinstrument. However, among thoseinstruments there were some whichcontained a reservation and thereforewere subject to the provisions of article20 of the Convention allowing Statesto notify objections within ninety daysfrom the date of circulation by theSecretary-General of the reservations.In respect of two such instruments,namely those of Kuwait and Spain, theninety-day period had not yet expiredon the date of deposit of the twenty-seventh instrument. The reservationcontained in one further instrument,that of India, had not yet beencirculated on that date, and thetwenty-seventh instrument itself, thatof Poland, contained a reservation; inrespect of these two instruments theninety-day period would only begin torun on the date of the Secretary-General's notification of their deposit.Therefore, in that notification, whichwas dated 13 December 1968, theSecretary-General called the attentionof the interested States to the situationand stated the following:

"It appears from the provisions ofarticle 20 of the Convention that itwould not be possible to determine thelegal effect of the four instruments inquestion pending the expiry of therespective periods of time mentionedin the preceding paragraph.

Having regard to the above-mentionedconsideration, the Secretary-General is


not at the present time in a position toascertain the date of entry into force ofthe Convention."

Subsequently, in a notification dated17 March 1969, the Secretary-Generalinformed the interested States; (a) thatwithin the period of ninety days fromthe date of his previous notification hehad received an objection from oneState to the reservation contained inthe instrument of ratification by theGovernment of India; and (b) that theConvention, in accordance withparagraph 1 of article 19, had enteredinto force on 4 January 1969, i.e., onthe thirtieth day after the date ofdeposit of the instrument ofratification of the Convention by theGovernment of Poland, which was thetwenty-seventh instrument ofratification or instrument of accessiondeposited with the Secretary-General.

(2) Official Records of the GeneralAssembly, Twentieth Session,Supplement No. 14 (A/6014), p. 47.

(3) The Convention had previously beensigned and ratified on behalf of theRepublic of China on 31 March 1966and 10 December 1970, respectively.See note concerning signatures,ratifications, accessions, etc. on behalfof China (note in chapter I.1).

With reference to the above-mentionedsignature and/or ratification,communications have been received bythe Secretary-General from theGovernments of Bulgaria (12 March1971), Mongolia (11 January 1971),the Byelorussian Soviet SocialistRepublic (9 June 1971), the UkrainianSoviet Socialist Republic (21 April1971) and the Union of SovietSocialist Republics (18 January 1971)stating that they considered the saidsignature and/or ratification as nulland void, since the so-called

"Government of China" had no rightto speak or assume obligations onbehalf of China, there being only oneChinese State, the People's Republic ofChina, and one Government entitledto represent it, the Government of thePeople's Republic of China.

In letters addressed to the Secretary-General in regard to the above-mentioned communications, thePermanent Representative of China tothe United Nations stated that theRepublic of China, a sovereign Stateand Member of the United Nations,had attended the twentieth regularsession of the United Nations GeneralAssembly, contributed to theformulation of the Conventionconcerned, signed the Convention andduly deposited the instrument ofratification thereof, and that "anystatements and reservations relating tothe above-mentioned Convention thatare incompatible with or derogatory tothe legitimate position of theGovernment of the Republic of Chinashall in no way affect the rights andobligations of the Republic of Chinaunder this Convention".

Finally, upon depositing its instrumentof accession, the Government of thePeople's Republic of China made thefollowing declaration: “The signingand ratification of the said Conventionby the Taiwan authorities in the nameof China are illegal and null and void.”

(4) Czechoslovakia had signed and ratifiedthe Convention on 7 October 1966and 29 December 1966, respectively,with reservations. Subsequently, on 12March 1984, the Government ofCzechoslovakia made an objection tothe ratification by DemocraticKampuchea. Further, by a notificationreceived on 26 April 1991, theGovernment of Czechoslovakianotified the Secretary-General of its


decision to withdraw the reservation toarticle 22 made upon signature andconfirmed upon ratification. For thetext of the reservations and theobjection see United Nations, TreatySeries, vol. 660, p. 276 and vol. 1350,p. 386, respectively. See also note 8below and note in chapter I.2.

(5) The German Democratic Republic hadacceded to the Convention on 23March 1973 with a reservation and adeclaration. For the text of thereservation and declaration, see UnitedNations, Treaty Series, vol. 883, p.190.

Moreover, on 26 April 1984, theGovernment of the GermanDemocratic Republic had made anobjection with regard to the ratificationmade by the Government of theDemocratic Kampuchea. For the textof the objection, see United Nations,Treaty Series, vol. 1355, p. 327. Seealso note in chapter I.2.

(6) In a note accompanying theinstrument of ratification, theGovernment of the Federal Republic ofGermany declared that the Convention"shall also apply to Land Berlin witheffect from the date on which it entersinto force for the Federal Republic ofGermany".

With reference to the above-mentioneddeclaration, the Secretary-Generalreceived communications from theGovernments of Bulgaria (16September1969), Czechoslovakia (3November 1969. See note 4 in thischapter), Mongolia (7 January 1970),Poland (20 June 1969), the UkrainianSoviet Socialist Republic (10November 1969) and the Union ofSoviet Socialist Republics (4 August1969). The said communications areidentical in essence, mutatis mutandis,to those referred in the second

paragraph of note in chapter III.3.

On 27 December 1973, theGovernment of the GermanDemocratic Republic made in respectof the above-mentioned declaration adeclaration which is identical inessence, mutatis mutandis, to the onereproduced in the fourth paragraph ofnote in chapter III.3. Subsequently, theSecretary-General received from theGovernments of the Federal Republicof Germany (15 July1974 and 19September 1975), France, the UnitedKingdom and the United States ofAmerica (17 June 1974 and 8 July1975), the Ukrainian Soviet SocialistRepublic (19 September 1974) and theUnion of Soviet Socialist Republics (12September 1974 and 8 December1975), declarations identical in essence,mutatis mutandis, to thecorresponding ones reproduced in notein chapter III.3.

See also note 5 above.

(7) With respect to the Associated States(Antigua, Dominica, Grenada, SaintChristopher Nevis Anguilla and SaintLucia) and Territories under theterritorial sovereignty of the UnitedKingdom, as well as the State ofBrunei, the Kingdom of Tonga and theBritish Solomon Islands Protectorate.

(8) The Yemen Arab Republic had accededto the Convention on 6 April 1989with the following reservation:

Reservations in respect of article 5(c)and article 5(d) (iv), (vi) and (vii).

In this regard, the Secretary-Generalreceived on 30 April 1990, from theGovernment of Czechoslovakia thefollowing objection:

"The Czech and Slovak FederalRepublic considers the reservations of


the Government of Yemen with respectto article 5(c) and articles 5(d) (iv),(vi),and (vii) of [the Convention], asincompatible with the object andpurpose of this Convention."

See also note in chapter I.2.

(9) In a communication received by theSecretary-General on 10 July 1969, theGovernment of Israel declared:

"[The Government of Israel] has notedthe political character of thedeclaration made by the Governmentof Iraq on signing the aboveConvention.

In the view of the Government ofIsrael, the Convention is not theproper place for making such politicalpronouncements. The Government ofIsrael will, in so far as concerns thesubstance of the matter, adopt towardsthe Government of Iraq an attitude ofcomplete reciprocity. Moreover, it isthe view of the Government of Israelthat no legal relevance can be attachedto those Iraqi statements whichpurport to represent the views of theother States".

Except for the omission of the lastsentence, identical communications inessence, mutatis mutandis, werereceived by the Secretary-General fromthe Government of Israel as follows: on29 December 1966 in respect of thedeclaration made by the Governmentof the United Arab Republic uponsignature (see also note 14 below); on16 August 1968 in respect of thedeclaration made by the Governmentof Libya upon accession; on 12December 1968 in respect of thedeclaration made by the Governmentof Kuwait upon accession; on 9 July1969 in respect of the declarationmade by the Government of Syriaupon accession; on 21 April 1970

made in respect of the declarationmade by Government of Iraq uponratification with the followingstatement "With regard to the politicaldeclaration in the guise of a reservationmade on the occasion of theratification of the above Treaty, theGovernment of Israel wishes to refer toits objection circulated by theSecretary-General in his letter [. . .]and to maintain that objection."; on12 February 1973 in respect of thedeclaration made by the Governmentof the People's Democratic Republic ofYemen upon accession; on 25September 1974 in respect of thedeclaration made by the United ArabEmirates upon accession and on 25June 1990 in respect of the reservationmade by Bahrain upon accession.

(10) In communications received on 8March, 19 and 20 April 1989, theGovernments of the Union of SovietSocialist Republics, the ByelorussianSoviet Socialist Republic and theUkrainian Soviet Socialist Republic,respectively, notified the Secretary-General that they had decided towithdraw the reservations relating toarticle 22. For the texts of thereservations, see United Nations, TreatySeries, vol. 676, p. 397, vol. 681, p.392 and vol. 677, p. 435.

(11) On 24 June 1992, the Government ofBulgaria notified the Secretary-Generalits decision to withdraw the reservationto article 22 made upon signature andconfirmed upon ratification. For thetext of the reservation, see UnitedNations, Treaty Series, vol. 660, p.270.

(12) None of the States concerned havingobjected to the reservation by the endof a period of ninety days after the datewhen it was circulated by theSecretary-General, the said reservationis deemed to have been permitted in


accordance with the provisions ofarticle 20(1).

(13) In a communication received on 4October 1972, the Government ofDenmark notified the Secretary-General that it withdrew thereservation made with regard to theimplementation on the Faroe Islands ofthe Convention. For the text of thereservation see United Nations, TreatySeries, vol. 820, p. 457.

The legislation by which theConvention has been implemented onthe Faroe Islands entered into force by1 November 1972, from which datethe withdrawal of the above reservationbecame effective.

(14) In a notification received on 18January 1980, the Government ofEgypt informed the Secretary-Generalthat it had decided to withdraw thedeclaration it had made in respect ofIsrael. For the text of the declarationsee United Nations, Treaty Series, vol.660, p. 318. The notification indicates25 January 1980 as the effective dateof the withdrawal.

(15) In a communication receivedsubsequently, the Government ofFrance indicated that the firstparagraph of the declaration did notpurport to limit the obligations underthe Convention in respect of theFrench Government, but only torecord the latter's interpretation ofarticle 4 of the Convention.

(16) In a communication received on 13September 1989, the Government ofHungary notified the Secretary-General that it had decided towithdraw the reservation in respect toarticle 22 of the Convention madeupon ratification. For the text of thereservation, see United Nations, TreatySeries, vol. 660, p. 310.

(17) In a communication received on 24February 1969, the Government ofPakistan notified the Secretary-Generalthat it "has decided not to accept thereservation made by the Governmentof India in her instrument ofratification".

(18) In a communication received on 19July 1990, the Government ofMongolia notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw thereservation concerning article 22 madeupon ratification. For the text of thereservation see United Nations, TreatySeries, vol. 660, p. 289.

(19) By a notification received on 28October 1977, the Government ofTonga informed the Secretary-Generalthat it has decided to withdraw onlythose reservations made upon accessionrelating to article 5(c) in so far as itrelates to elections, and reservationsrelating to articles 2, 3 and 5(e)(v), inso far as these articles relate toeducation and training. For the text ofthe original reservation see UnitedNations, Treaty Series, vol. 829, p.371.

(20) The first ten declarations recognizingthe competence of the Committee onthe Elimination of RacialDiscrimination took effect on 3December 1982, date of the deposit ofthe tenth declaration, according toarticle 14, paragraph 1 of theConvention.

3 0Making Mult icultural Australia International Convention on the Elimination ofAll Forms of Racial Discrimination: Signatories

(a) Amendment to article 8 ofthe International Conventionon the Elimination of all Formsof Racial Discrimination

Adopted at the Fourteenth Meeting of theStates Parties on 15 January 1992

NOT YET IN FORCE: (see paragraph 4 of theDecision of the States Parties).

TEXT: Doc. CERD/sp/45.

STATUS: Acceptances: 17.

Note: The amendment proposed by theGovernment of Australia and circulated by theSecretary-General under cover of depositarynotification C.N.285.1991.TREATIES-4 of 20December 1991, was adopted by the StatesParties to the Convention at their FourteenthMeeting and submitted to the General Assemblyin accordance with article 23 of theConvention. The General Assembly endorsedthe said amendment at its Forty-seventh sessionby resolution 47/111 of 16 December 1992.

Australia 15 Oct 1993Bahamas 31 Mar 1994Bulgaria 2 Mar 1995Burkina Faso 9 Aug 1993Canada 8 Feb 1995Denmark 3 Sep 1993Finland 9 Feb 1994France 1 Sep 1994Netherlands (1) 24 Jan 1995New Zealand 8 Oct 1993Norway 6 Oct 1993Republic of Korea 30 Nov 1993Seychelles 23 Jul 1993Sweden 14 May 1993Trinidad and Tobago 23 Aug 1993Ukraine 17 Jun 1994United Kingdom 7 Feb 1994

Notes:

(1) For the Kingdom in Europe, theNetherlands Antilles and Aruba.


International Convention on the Elimination of All … document below gives the dates of signing and...

Documents

Transcript of International Convention on the Elimination of All … document below gives the dates of signing and...