S.I. No. 374/2005 - Extradition Act 1965 (Application of Part II) (Amendment) Order 2005

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

18 May 2005

With regard to the reservation made by Belgium upon ratification:

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

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

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

Denmark

30 April 2004

With regard to the declaration made by Jordan upon ratification:

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

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

The Government of Denmark recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

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

Finland

29 April 2004

With regard to the declaration made by Jordan upon ratification:

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

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

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

The Government of Finland wishes to recall that, according to the customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose and that states are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

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

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

France

4 December 2002

With regard to the reservations made by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea upon signature:

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

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

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

11 June 2004

With regard to the declaration made by Jordan upon ratification:

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

Germany

With regard to the declarations made by the Jordan upon ratification:

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the substance of the declarations made by the Government of the Kingdom of Jordan upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, especially that part of the declarations in which the Government of the Kingdom of Jordan states that it “does not consider acts of national armed struggle and fighting foreign occupation in the exercise of people's right to self-determination as terrorist acts within the context of paragraph 1 (b) of article 2 of the Convention”. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that this declaration in fact constitutes a reservation aimed at unilaterally limiting the scope of application of the Convention, and is thus contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorism, regardless of by whom and to what end it is perpetrated.

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

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

18 May 2005

With regard to the reservation made by Belgium upon ratification:

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

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

Hungary

26 August 2004

With regard to the declaration made by Jordan upon ratification:

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

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

The Government of the Republic of Hungary recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.

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

Italy

20 May 2004

With regard to the declaration made by Jordan upon ratification:

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

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

The Government of Italy recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

The Government of Italy therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Jordan to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

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

20 May 2005

With regard to the reservation made by the Belgium upon ratification:

Netherlands

1 May 2002

With regard to the reservations made by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea upon signature:

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

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

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

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

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

21 April 2004

With regard to the declaration made by Jordan upon ratification:

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

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

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

It is in the common interest of the States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

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

Norway

3 December 2002

With regard to the reservations made by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea upon signature:

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

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

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

15 July 2004

With regard to the declaration made by Jordan upon ratification:

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

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

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

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

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

Portugal

27 August 2004

With regard to the declaration made by Jordan upon ratification:

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

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

The Government of Portugal recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

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

Spain

3 December 2002

With regard to the reservations made by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea upon signature:

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

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

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

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

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

20 May 2005

With regard to the reservation made by the Belgium upon ratification:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sweden

27 November 2002

With regard to the reservations made by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea upon signature:

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

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

The Government of Sweden would like to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.

It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

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

27 January 2004

With regard to the declaration made by Israel upon ratification:

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

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

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

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

28 May 2004

With regard to the declaration made by Jordan upon ratification:

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

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

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

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

The Government of Sweden wishes to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

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

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

22 November 2002

With regard to the reservations made by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea upon signature:

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

25 February 2004

With regard to the declaration made by Jordan upon ratification:

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

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

The Government of the United Kingdom recall that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

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

United States of America

6 August 2004

With regard to the declaration made by the Jordan upon ratification:

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

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

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

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

20 May 2005

With regard to the reservation made by the Belgium upon ratification:

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

Notifications made under article 7 (3)

(Unless otherwise indicated, the notifications were made upon ratification acceptance, approval or accession.)

Australia

24 October 2002

Pursuant to article 7, paragraph 3 of the Convention, ... Australia has established jurisdiction in relation to all the circumstances referred to in article 7, paragraph 2 of the Convention.

Azerbaijan

16 June 2004

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

Belarus

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

Belgium

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

Bolivia

13 February 2002

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

Chile

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

Cook Islands

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

Croatia

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

Cyprus

27 December 2001

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

Denmark

Pursuant to article 7, paragraph 3, of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism Denmark declares that section 6-12 of the Danish Criminal Code provide for Danish jurisdiction in respect of offences set forth in article 2 of the Convention in all the circumstances laid down in article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

El Salvador

Pursuant to article 7, paragraph 3, the Republic of El Salvador notifies that it has established its jurisdiction in accordance with its national laws in respect of offences committed in the situations and under the conditions provided for in article 7, paragraph 2;

Estonia

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

Finland

Pursuant to article 7, paragraph 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Republic of Finland establishes its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 in all the cases provided for in article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2.

France

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

Germany

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

Hungary

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

Iceland

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

Israel

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

Jordan

Jordan decides to establish its jurisdiction over all offences described in paragraph 2 of article 7 of the Convention.

Latvia

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

Liechtenstein

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

Lithuania

It is provided in paragraph 3 of Article 7 of the said Convention, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania declares that the Republic of Lithuania shall have jurisdiction over the offences set forth in Article 2 of the Convention in all cases specified in paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Convention.

Mauritius

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

Mexico

24 February 2003

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

• (a) They are committed against Mexicans in the territory of another State party, provided that the accused is in Mexico and has not been tried in the country in which the offence was committed. Where it is a question of offences defined in the Convention but committed in the territory of a non-party State, the offence shall also be defined as such in the place where it was committed (art. 7, para. 2 (a));

• (b) They are committed in Mexican embassies and on diplomatic or consular premises (art. 7, para. 2 (b));

• (c) They are committed abroad but produce effects or are claimed to produce effects in the national territory (art. 7, para. 2 (c)).

Monaco

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

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

• (a) Offences committed in its territory: this is the case in Monaco in application of the general principle of territoriality of the law;

• (b) Offences committed on board a vessel flying the Monegasque flag: this is the case in Monaco in application of article L.633-1 et seq. of the Maritime Code; Offences committed on board an aircraft registered under Monegasque law: the Tokyo Convention of 14 September 1963, rendered enforceable in Monaco by Sovereign Order No. 7.963 of 24 April 1984, specifies that the courts and tribunals of the State of registration of the aircraft are competent to exercise jurisdiction over offences and acts committed on board it;

• (c) Offences committed by a Monegasque national: the Code of Criminal Procedure states in articles 5 and 6 that any Monegasque committing abroad an act qualified as a crime or offence by the law in force in the Principality may be charged and brought to trial there.

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

• (a) The offence was directed towards or resulted in the carrying out of a terrorist offence in its territory or against one of its nationals: articles 42 to 43 of the Criminal Code permit the Monegasque courts, in general terms, to punish accomplices of a perpetrator charged in Monaco with offences referred to in article 2 of the Convention;

• (b) The offence was directed towards or resulted in the carrying out of a terrorist offence against a State or government facility, including diplomatic or consular premises: attacks aimed at bringing about devastation, massacres and pillage in Monegasque territory are punishable under article 65 of the Criminal Code; in addition, article 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the charging and trial in Monaco of foreigners who outside the territory of the Principality, have committed a crime prejudicial to the security of the State or a crime or offence against Monegasque diplomatic or consular agents or premises;

• (c) The offence was directed towards or resulted in a terrorist offence committed in an attempt to compel the State to do or abstain from doing any act: the crimes and offences in question normally correspond to one of those referred to above, directly or through complicity;

• (d) The offence was committed by a stateless person who had his or her habitual residence in Monegasque territory: application of the general principle of territoriality of the law permits the charging of stateless persons having their habitual residence in Monaco;

• (e) The offence was committed on board an aircraft operated by the Monegasque Government: if the Monegasque Government directly operated an aircraft or an airline its aircraft would have to be registered in Monaco, and the Tokyo Convention of 14 September 1963 referred to above would then apply

Norway

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

Republic of Korea

7 July 2004

Pursuant to Article 7, Paragraph 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism,

The Republic of Korea provides the following information on its criminal jurisdiction. Principles on the criminal jurisdiction are set out in the Chapter I of Part I of the Korean Penal Code. The provisions have the following wording;

Article 2 (Domestic Crimes)

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

Article 3 (Crimes by Koreans outside Korea)

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

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

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

Article 5 (Crimes by Aliens outside Korea)

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

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

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

Article 8 (Application of General Provisions)

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

Republic of Moldova

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

Romania

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

Russian Federation

The Russian Federation, pursuant to article 7, paragraph 3, of the Convention, declares that it establishes its jurisdiction over the acts recognized as offences under article 2 of the Convention in the cases provided for in article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention.

Singapore

In accordance with the provision of Article 7, paragraph 3, the Republic of Singapore gives notification that it has established jurisdiction over the offences set forth in Article 2 of the Convention in all the cases provided for in Article 7, paragraph 2 of the Convention.

Slovakia

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

Slovenia

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

Spain

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

Sweden

5 November 2002

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

Section 1

Crimes committed in this Realm shall be adjudged in accordance with Swedish law and by a Swedish court. The same applies when it is uncertain where the crime was committed but grounds exist for assuming that it was committed within the Realm.

Section 2

Crimes committed outside the Realm shall be adjudged according to Swedish law and by a Swedish court when the crime has been committed:

The first paragraph shall not apply if the act is not subject to criminal responsibility under the law of the place where it was committed or if it was committed within an area not belonging to any state and, under Swedish law, the punishment for the act cannot be more severe than a fine.

In cases mentioned in this Section, a sanction may not be imposed which is more severe than the most severe punishment provided for the crime under the law in the place where it was committed.

Section 3

Even in cases other than those listed in Section 2, crimes committed outside the Realm shall be adjudged according to Swedish law and by a Swedish court:

3a. if the crime was committed in the course of duty outside the Realm by a policeman custom officer or official employed at the coast guard, who performs boundless assignments according to an international agreement that Sweden has ratified,

Section 3 a

Besides the cases described in Sections 1-3, crimes shall be adjudged according to Swedish law by a Swedish court in accordance with the provisions of the Act on International Collaboration concerning Proceedings in Criminal matters.

Section 4

A crime is deemed to have been committed where the criminal act was perpetrated and also where the crime was completed or in the case of an attempt, where the intended crime would have been completed.

Section 5

Prosecution for a crime committed within the Realm on a foreign vessel or aircraft by an alien, who was the officer in charge or member of its crew or otherwise travelled in it against another alien or a foreign interest shall not be instituted without the authority of the Government or a person designated by the Government.

Prosecution for a crime committed outside the Realm may be instituted only following the authorisation referred to in the first paragraph. However, prosecution may be instituted without such an order if the crime consists of a false or careless statement before an international court or if the crime was committed:

Switzerland

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

Tunisia

The Republic of Tunisia,

In ratifying the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism adopted on 9 December 1999 by the General Assembly at its fifty-fourth session and signed by the Republic of Tunisia on 2 November 2001, declares that it considers itself bound by the provisions of article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention and decides to establish its jurisdiction when:

• The offence was directed towards or resulted in the carrying out of an offence referred to in article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a) or (b), in the territory of Tunisia or against one of its nationals;

• The offence was directed towards or resulted in the carrying out of an offence referred to in article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a) or (b), against a Tunisian State or government facility abroad, including Tunisian diplomatic or consular facilities;

• The offence was directed towards or resulted in an offence referred to in article 2 paragraph 1, subparagraph (a) or (b), committed in an attempt to compel Tunisia to do or abstain from doing any act;

• The offence is committed by a stateless person who has his or her habitual residence in Tunisian territory;

• The offence is committed on board an aircraft operated by the Government of Tunisia.

Turkey

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

Ukraine

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

Uzbekistan

5 February 2002

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

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

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

SCHEDULE 5

PART A

“Bulgaria

Amendment of declaration contained in a Note Verbale from the Permanent Representation of Bulgaria, dated 7 March 2002, registered at the Secretariat General on 11 March 2002

The Republic of Bulgaria declares that it will require that all documents be sent together with a translation into Bulgarian, or in the absence of such, with a translation into either of the official languages of the Council of Europe.

South Africa

Declaration contained in a Note Verbale from the Embassy of South Africa in Brussels dated 26 May 2003 and registered at the Secretariat General on 11 June 2003 supplemented by a Note Verbale dated 17 June 2003 and registered at the Secretariat General on 17 June 2003

For the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention, the term “nationals” is defined, in terms of South Africa's legal system, as persons who have acquired South African citizenship by means of birth, descent or naturalisation. This includes persons with citizenship of South Africa and of another country. These persons will all be liable to be extradited. South Africa's acceptance of dual citizenship will therefore not bar the extradition of a person where he or she is also in possession of a citizenship of a country which prohibits the extradition of its nationals.

Reservation contained in a Note Verbale from the Embassy of South Africa in Brussels dated 26 May 2003 and registered at the Secretariat General on 11 June 2003 supplemented by a Note Verbale dated 17 June 2003 and registered at the Secretariat General on 17 June 2003

For the purposes of Article 2 of the Convention, the Republic of South Africa shall not extradite any person unless the punishment awarded for a conviction in respect of which he or she is being sought, is a sentence of imprisonment of at least six months.”

PART B

“Andorra

23 Sep 2004

At the time of accession to this Convention, the Principality of Andorra has no airport or airfield, although it does have a heliport and helistation.”

PART C

“Lao People's Democratic Republic

1 Oct 2004

Reservation:

In accordance with paragraph 4, Article 32 of the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, the Lao People's Democratic Republic does not consider itself bound by paragraph 2, Article 32 of the present Convention. The Lao People's Democratic Republic declares that to refer a dispute relating to interpretation and application of the present Convention to arbitration or the International Court of Justice, the agreement of all parties concerned in the dispute is necessary.

United Kingdom

Further, on 3 April 2002, the Government of the United Kingdom informed the Secretary-General that the Convention would extend to Guernsey, with the following reservation:

• (1) Article 7, Paragraph 18 (Reservation)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will only consider the granting of immunity under Article 7, Paragraph 18, in relation to Guernsey, where this is specifically requested by the person to whom the immunity would apply or by the authority designated under Article 7, Paragraph 8 of the party from whom assistance is requested. A request for immunity will not be granted where the judicial authorities of Guernsey consider that to do so would be contrary to the public interest.”

PART D

“The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Reservation contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 29 November 2004

In accordance with Article 13 of the Convention, the Republic of Macedonia reserves the right to refuse extradition in respect of any offence mentioned in Article 1 which it considers to be a political offence, an offence connected with a political offence or an offence inspired by political motives; in these cases, the Republic of Macedonia undertakes to take into due consideration when evaluating the character of the offence, its particularly serious aspects, including that it created a collective danger to the life physical integrity or liberty of persons or that it affected persons foreign to the motives behind it or that cruel or vicious means have been used in the commission of the offence.”

PART E

“Chile

15 March 2004

By virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution of the Republic of Chile, I should like to declare that the Government of Chile recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture established pursuant to article 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 with respect to acts of which the commencement of execution is subsequent to the communication of this declaration by the Republic of Chile to the Secretary-General of the United Nations:

• (a) To receive and consider communications to the effect that a State party claims that the State of Chile is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention, in accordance with article 21 thereof; and

• (b) To receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the State of Chile of the provisions of the Convention, in accordance with article 22 thereof.

Mauritania

17 Nov 2004

Reservations:

Article 20

The Mauritanian Government does not recognize the competence granted to the Committee in article 20 of the Convention, which provides as follows:

1. If the Committee receives reliable information which appears to it to contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practiced in the territory of a State Party, the Committee shall invite that State Party to cooperate in the examination of the information and to this end to submit observations with regard to the information concerned.

2. Taking into account any observations which may have been submitted by the State Party concerned, as well as any other relevant information available to it, the Committee may, if it decides that this is warranted, designate one or more of its members to make a confidential inquiry and to report to the Committee urgently.

3. If an inquiry is made in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article, the Committee shall seek the cooperation of the State Party concerned. In agreement with that State Party, such an inquiry may include a visit to its territory.

4. After examining the findings of its member or members submitted in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article, the Committee shall transmit these findings to the State Party concerned together with any comments or suggestions which seem appropriate in view of the situation.

5. All the proceedings of the Committee referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this article shall be confidential, and at all stages of the proceedings the cooperation of the State Party shall be sought. After such proceedings have been completed with regard to an inquiry made in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee may, after consultations with the State Party concerned, decide to include a summary account of the results of the proceedings in its annual report made in accordance with article 24.

Article 30, paragraph 1

1. Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from the date of the request for arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court.

Pursuant to article 30, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Government of Mauritania declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of this article, which provides that in the event of a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, one of the Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request.”

PART F