LegalizeS.I. No. 9/2009 - Extradition Act 1965 (Application of Part II) (Amendment) Order 2009
This is the act as published. Later amendments are not folded into the text below: each one is a separate act in this repository and an entry in this law's history.
1 amending act · 2019-08-02, S.I. No. 372/2019 - Extradition Act 1965 (Application Of Part II) (Revocation) Order 2019
“Argentina
Declaration:
In accordance with the provisions of article 24, paragraph 2, the Argentine Republic declares that it does not consider itself bound by article 24, paragraph 1, and consequently does not accept mandatory recourse to arbitration or to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
Bahamas
Declaration:
In accordance with article 2.2 of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Government of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas declares that it is not a party to the Agreements listed as items 5 to 9 in the annex referred to in paragraph 1, subparagraph (a) of the Convention and that those Agreements shall be deemed not to be included in the annex referred to in paragraph 1, subparagraph (a). Those Agreements are:
Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 3rd March, 1980.
Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal on 24th February, 1988.
Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10th March, 1988.
Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome, on 10th March, 1988.
International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15th December, 1997.
Bangladesh
Reservation:
Pursuant to Article 24, paragraph 2 of the Convention [the] Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 24, paragraph1 of the Convention.
Understanding:
[The] Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh understands that its accession to this Convention shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with its international obligations under the Constitution of the country.
Belgium
On 28 January 2008, the Government of Belgium notified the Secretary-General of its intention to withdraw the reservation in respect of article 14 made upon ratification. The text of the reservation reads as follows:
“1. In exceptional circumstances, the Government of Belgium reserves the right to refuse extradition or mutual legal assistance in respect of any offence set forth in article 2 which it considers to be a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence or as an offence inspired by political motives.
- In cases where the preceding paragraph is applicable, Belgium recalls that it is bound by the general legal principle aut dedere aut judicare, pursuant to the rules governing the competence of its courts.”
Brazil
Upon signature:
Interpretative declarations:
Interpretative Declarations to be made by the Federal Republic of Brazil on the occasion of signing of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism:
As concerns Article 2 of the said Convention, three of the legal instruments listed in the Annex to the Convention have not come into force in Brazil. These are the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation; Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf; and the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
As concerns Article 24, paragraph 2 of the said Convention, Brazil does not consider itself obligated by paragraph 1 of the said Article, given that it has not recognized the mandatory jurisdiction clause of the International Court of Justice.
China
Reservation and declaration:
- The People’s Republic of China shall not be bound by paragraph 1 of article 24 of the Convention.
[...]
As to the Macao Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, the following three Conventions shall not be included in the annex referred to in Article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a) of the Convention:
(1) Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 3 March 1980.
(2) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.
(3) Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Upon signature:
Reservations:
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 2, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (a) of the Convention.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 14 of the Convention.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 24, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
Estonia
On 30 March 2006, the Government of Estonia notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its declaration made upon ratification. The text of the declaration reads as follows:
“... pursuant to article 2, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the Republic of Estonia declares, that she does not consider itself bound by the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome, on 10 March 1988, annexed to the Convention;”....
Indonesia
Declaration:
A. In accordance with Article 2 paragraph 2 subparagraph (a) of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Government of the Republic of Indonesia declares that the following treaties are to be deemed not to be included in the Annex referred to in Article 2 paragraph 1 subparagraph (a) of the Convention:
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 December 1973.
International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 17 December 1979.
Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal on 24 February 1988.
Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.
Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.
B. The Government of the Republic of Indonesia declares that the provisions of Article 7 of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism will have to be implemented in strict compliance with the principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States.
Reservation:
The Government of the Republic of Indonesia, while signatory to the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, does not consider itself bound by the provision of Article 24 and takes the position that dispute relating to the interpretation and application on the Convention which cannot be settled through the channel provided for in paragraph (1) of the said Article, may be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the consent of all the Parties to the dispute.
Malaysia
Declarations and reservation:
The Government of Malaysia declares, pursuant to article 2 (2) (a) of the Convention, that in the application of the Convention to Malaysia, the Convention shall be deemed not to include the treaties listed in the Annex to the Convention which Malaysia is not a party thereto.
In accordance with Article 7 (3) of the Convention, the Government of Malaysia declares that it has established jurisdiction in accordance with its domestic laws over the offences set forth in Article 2 of the Convention in all the cases provided for in Article 7 (1) and 7 (2).
The Government of Malaysia understands Article 10 (1) of the Convention to include the right of the competent authorities to decide not to submit any particular case for prosecution before the judicial authorities if the alleged offender is dealt with under national security and preventive detention laws.
(a) Pursuant to Article 24 (2) of the Convention, the Government of Malaysia declares that it does not consider itself bound by article 24 (1) of the Convention; and
- (b) The Government of Malaysia reserves the right specifically to agree in a particular case to follow the arbitration procedure set forth in Article 24 (1) of the Convention or any other procedure for arbitration.
Qatar
Reservation:
With reservation regarding paragraph 1 of Article (24) concerning the submission of disputes to International Arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.
Saudi Arabia
Reservation and declaration:
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not consider itself bound by article 24, paragraph 1 of the Convention relating to the submission to arbitration of any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention, or their referral to the International Court of Justice should settlement by arbitration be impossible.
The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material is not deemed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to be included in the annex referred to in article 2, paragraph 1 (a) of the Convention.
United Arab Emirates
Reservation:
Subject to a reservation with respect to article 24, paragraph 1, thereof, in consequence of which the United Arab Emirates does not consider itself bound by that paragraph, which relates to arbitration.
Objections
Austria
25 August 2005
With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:
The Government of Austria has carefully examined the Declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the Convention. The Government of Austria considers that this declaration is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its object and purpose, which is the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.
The Declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to “adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.
The Government of Austria recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Austria therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Austria and the Arab Republic of Egypt.
12 September 2005
With regard to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:
The Government of Austria has carefully examined the Declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic at the time of its ratification of the Convention.
The Government of Austria considers that this declaration is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its object and purpose, which is the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.
The Declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to “adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.
The Government of Austria recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Austria therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.
However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Austria and the Syrian Arab Republic.
Belgium
25 July 2005
With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:
The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium has examined the reservation formulated by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, in particular the part of the reservation in which the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt declares that it “does not consider acts of national resistance in all its forms, including armed resistance against foreign occupation and aggression with a view to liberation and self-determination, as terrorist acts within the meaning of article 2, [paragraph 1], subparagraph (b), of the Convention”. The Government of Belgium considers that this reservation is a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and that is contrary to its object and purpose, namely, the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, wherever and by whomever committed.
Moreover, this declaration is contrary to article 6 of the Convention, according to which “each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature”.
The Government of Belgium recalls that, according to article 19, paragraph (c), of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
The Government of Belgium therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Government of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Belgium and Egypt.
24 October 2005
With regard to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:
The Government of Belgium has examined the reservation formulated by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, in particular the part of the reservations and declarations relating to the provisions of article 2, paragraph 1 (b), of the Convention, in which the Syrian Arab Republic declares that it considers “that acts of resistance to foreign occupation are not included under acts of terrorism”. The Government of Belgium considers that this reservation seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis, which is contrary to the object and purpose thereof, namely, the suppression of the financing of acts of terrorism, wherever and by whomever committed.
Moreover, this reservation contravenes article 6 of the Convention, according to which “Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature”.
The Government of Belgium recalls that, under article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, no reservation may be formulated that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of Belgium therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Belgium and the Syrian Arab Republic.
Canada
26 April 2006
With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:
The Government of Canada has examined the Declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and considers that the Declaration is, in fact, a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention which is the suppression of the financing of terrorism, irrespective of who carries it out.
The Government of Canada considers the declaration to be, furthermore, contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to “adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.
The Government of Canada recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Canada therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Canada and the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt.
With regard to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession
The Government of Canada has examined the Reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic at the time of its ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and considers that the Reservation seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention which is the suppression of the financing of terrorism, irrespective of who carries it out.
The Government of Canada considers the Reservation to be, furthermore, contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to “adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.
The Government of Canada recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of Canada therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Canada and the Syrian Arab Republic.
31 August 2006
With regard to the understanding made by Bangladesh upon accession
The Government of Canada has examined the “understanding” made by the People’s Republic of Bangladesh at the time of its accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and considers that the “understanding” is, in fact, a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis.
The Government of Canada recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
The Government of Canada therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Canada and the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
Denmark
15 September 2005
With regard to a reservation made the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:
The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark has examined the reservation made by Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon accession to the Convention relating to Article 2 paragraph 1 (b) thereof.
The Government of Denmark considers that the reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic unilaterally limits the scope of the Convention and that the reservation is contrary to the Convention’s object and purpose, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place or who carries them out.
The Government of Denmark further considers the reservation to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to ‘adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature’.
The Government of Denmark recalls that, according to Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
The Government of Denmark therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Kingdom of Denmark and the Syrian Arab Republic.
With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:
The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark has examined the Declaration Relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the Convention. The Government of Denmark considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and which is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place or who carries them out.
The Government of Denmark further considers the Declaration to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to “adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature”.
The Government of Denmark recalls that, according to Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
The Government of Denmark therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Kingdom of Denmark and the Arab Republic of Egypt.
Estonia
23 September 2005
With regard to a reservation made the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:
The Government of the Republic of Estonia has carefully examined the reservation relating to Article 2, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (b) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Syrian Arab Republic at the time of its accession to the Convention. The Government of Estonia considers the Syrian reservation to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place or who carries them out.
The object and purpose of the Convention is to suppress the financing of terrorist acts, including those defined in Article 2, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (b). The Government of Estonia finds that such acts can never be justified with reference to resistance to foreign occupation.
Furthermore, the Government of Estonia is in the position that the reservation is contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to “adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature”.
The Government of Estonia recalls that according to Article 19, sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of states that all parties respect the treaties to which they have chosen to become parties as to their object and purpose, and that states are prepared to take all necessary measures to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Estonia therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Estonia and the Syrian Arab Republic.
With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:
The Government of the Republic of Estonia has carefully examined the explanatory declaration relating to Article 2, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (b) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the Convention. The Government of Estonia considers the declaration made by Egypt to be in fact a reservation that seeks to limit unilaterally the scope of the Convention and is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place or who carries them out.
The object and purpose of the Convention is to suppress the financing of terrorist acts, including those defined in Article 2, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (b). The Government of Estonia finds that such acts can never be justified with reference to resistance against foreign occupation and aggression with a view to liberation and self-determination.
Furthermore, the Government of Estonia is in the position that the explanatory declaration is contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, acceding to which States Parties commit themselves to “adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature”.
The Government of Estonia recalls that according to Article 19, sub-paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that all parties respect the treaties to which they have chosen to become parties as to their object and purpose, and that states are prepared to take all necessary measures to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Estonia therefore objects to the aforementioned declaration made by the Government of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Estonia and the Arab Republic of Egypt.
Finland
20 July 2005
With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:
The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the interpretative declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of article 2 of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt.
The Government of Finland is of the view that the declaration amounts to a reservation as its purpose is to unilaterally limit the scope of the Convention. The Government of Finland further considers the declaration to be in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be carried out.
The declaration is, furthermore, contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to adopt measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature.
The Government of Finland wishes to recall that, according to the customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose and that states are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above-mentioned interpretative declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the Convention.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Arab Republic of Egypt and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without the Arab Republic of Egypt benefiting from its declaration.
20 July 2005
With regard to the declaration made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:
The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the reservation relating to paragraph 1 (b) of article 2 of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic.
The Government of Finland considers the reservation to be in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be carried out.
The reservation is, furthermore, contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to adopt measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature.
The Government of Finland wishes to recall that, according to the customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose and that states are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the Convention.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Syrian Arab Republic and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without the Syrian Arab Republic benefiting from its reservation.
France
15 August 2005
With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:The Government of the French Republic has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 9 December 1999, whereby Egypt “ does not consider acts of national resistance in all its forms, including armed resistance against foreign occupation and aggression with a view to liberation and self-determination, as terrorist acts within the meaning of article 2,[paragraph 1], subparagraph (b), of the Convention ”. However, the Convention applies to the suppression of the financing of all acts of terrorism and states particularly in its article 6 that “each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature”. The Government of the French Republic considers that the said declaration constitutes a reservation, contrary to the object and the purpose of the Convention and objects to that reservation. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Arab Republic of Egypt and France.
With regard to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:
The Government of the French Republic has examined the reservations made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 9 December 1999, inasmuch as Syria considers, with regard to the provisions of article 2, paragraph 1 (b) of the Convention that “ Acts of resistance to foreign occupation are not included under acts of terrorism ”. However, the Convention applies to the suppression of the financing of all acts of terrorism and states particularly in its article 6 that “each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature”. The Government of the French Republic considers that the said reservation is contrary to the object and the purpose of the Convention and objects to the reservation. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Syria and France.
Germany
16 August 2005
With regard to the reservation made by Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon accession to the Convention relating to Article 2 paragraph 1 (b) thereof. It is of the opinion that this reservation unilaterally limits the scope of the Convention and is thus in contradiction to the object and purpose of the Convention, in particular the object of suppressing the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be committed.
The reservation is further contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a convention are not permissible.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Syrian Arab Republic.
With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon ratification of the Convention relating to Article 2 paragraph 1 (b) thereof. It is of the opinion that this declaration amounts to a reservation, since its purpose is to unilaterally limit the scope of the Convention. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is furthermore of the opinion that the declaration is in contradiction to the object and purpose of the Convention, in particular the object of suppressing the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be committed.
The declaration is further contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a convention are not permissible.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned declaration by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Arab Republic of Egypt.
11 August 2006
With regard to the understanding made by Bangladesh upon accession:
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration made by the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. The People’s Republic of Bangladesh has declared that its accession to the Convention shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with its obligations under the Constitution of the country. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that this declaration raises questions as to which obligations the People’s Republic of Bangladesh intends to give precedence to in the event of any inconsistency between the Convention and its Constitution.
Declarations that leave it uncertain to what extent that State consents to be bound by its contractual obligations are in the opinion of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to be treated, in effect, as vague and general reservations, which are not compatible with the object and purpose of a Convention.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned declaration made by the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
Hungary
28 February 2006
With regard to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:
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 Syrian Arab Republic at the time of its accession to the Convention. The Government of the Republic of Hungary considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its object and purpose, which is the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place and 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 Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Hungary and the Syrian Arab Republic.
With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:
The Government of the Republic of Hungary has examined the explanatory declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the Convention. The Government of the Republic of Hungary considers that the explanatory declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its object and purpose, which is the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place and of who carries them out.
The explanatory 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 Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Hungary and the Arab Republic of Egypt.
Ireland
23 June 2006
With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:
The Government of Ireland have examined the explanatory declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, done at New York on 9 December 1999, according to which the Arab Republic of Egypt does not consider acts of national resistance in all its forms, including armed resistance against foreign occupation and aggression with a view to liberation and self-determination, as terrorist acts within the meaning of paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention.
The Government of Ireland are of the view that this explanatory declaration amounts to a reservation as its purpose is to unilaterally limit the scope of the Convention. The Government of Ireland are also of the view that this reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, namely suppressing the financing of terrorist acts, including those defined in paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention, wherever and by whomever committed.
This reservation is contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States parties are under an obligation to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.
The Government of Ireland recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a convention are not permissible. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party are respected as to their object and purpose and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under these treaties.
The Government of Ireland therefore object to the reservation made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Ireland and the Arab Republic of Egypt. The Convention enters into force between Ireland and the Arab Republic of Egypt, without the Arab Republic of Egypt benefiting from its reservation.
Italy
12 January 2006
With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:
The Government of Italy has examined the explanatory declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, according to which the Arab Republic of Egypt does not consider acts of national resistance in all its forms, including armed resistance against foreign occupation and aggression with a view of liberation and self-determination, as terrorist acts within the meaning of paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention.
The Government of Italy recalls that the designation assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. The Government of Italy considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt in substance constitutes a reservation.
The object and purpose of the Convention is to suppress the financing of terrorist acts, including those defined in paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention. Such acts can never be justified with reference to the exercise of people’s right to self-determination.
The Government of Italy further considers the reservation to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which the States parties are under an obligation to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.
The Government of Italy wishes to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become Parties are respected as to their object and purpose, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Italy therefore objects to the reservation made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Arab Republic of Egypt and Italy. The Convention enters into force between the Arab Republic of Egypt and Italy without the Arab Republic of Egypt benefiting from its reservation.
With regard to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:
The Government of Italy has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, according to which the Syrian Arab Republic considers that acts of resistance to foreign occupation are not included under acts of terrorism within the meaning of paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention.
The object and purpose of the Convention is to suppress the financing of terrorist acts, including those defined in paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention. Such acts can never be justified with reference to the exercise of people’s right to self-determination.
The Government of Italy further considers the reservation to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which the States Parties are under an obligation to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.
The Government of Italy wishes to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Italy objects to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Syrian Arab Republic and Italy. The Convention enters into force between the Syrian Arab Republic and Italy, without the Syrian Arab Republic benefiting from its reservation.
Japan
1 May 2006
With regard to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:
When depositing its instrument of accession, the Government of Syrian Arab Republic made a reservation which reads as follows: “A reservation concerning the provisions of its article 2, paragraph 1 (b), inasmuch as the Syrian Arab Republic considers that acts of resistance to foreign occupation are not included under acts of terrorism”.
In this connection, the Government of Japan draws attention to the provisions of article 6 of the Convention, according to which each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.
The Government of Japan considers that the aforementioned reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic seeks to exclude acts of resistance to foreign occupation from application of the Convention and that such reservation constitutes a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of Japan therefore objects to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic.
Latvia
30 September 2005
With regard to the declaration made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:
The Government of the Republic of Latvia has examined the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention of the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon accession to the Convention regarding Article 2 paragraph 1 (b) thereof.
The Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that this reservation unilaterally limits the scope of the Convention and is thus in contradiction to the objectives and purposes of the Convention to suppress the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomsoever they may be carried out.
Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the reservation conflicts with the terms of Article 6 of the Convention setting out the obligation for State Parties to adopt such measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature.
The Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls that customary international law as codified by Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19 (c), sets out that reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not permissible.
The Government of the Republic of Latvia therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.
However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Latvia and the Syrian Arab Republic. Thus, the Convention will become operative without the Syrian Arab Republic benefiting from its reservation.
With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:
The Government of the Republic of Latvia has examined the explanatory reservation made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention of the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon accession to the Convention regarding Article 2 paragraph 1 (b) thereof.
The Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that this explanatory declaration is in fact unilateral act that is deemed to limit the scope of the Convention and therefore should be regarded as reservation. Thus, this reservation contradicts to the objectives and purposes of the Convention to suppress the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomsoever they may be carried out.
Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the reservation conflicts with the terms of Article 6 of the Convention setting out the obligation for States Parties to adopt such measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature.
The Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls that customary international law as codified by Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19 (c), sets out that reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not permissible.
The Government of the Republic of Latvia therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.
However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Latvia and the Arab Republic of Egypt. Thus, the Convention will become operative without the Arab Republic of Egypt benefiting from its reservation.
23 August 2006
With regard to the understanding made by Bangladesh upon accession:
The Government of the Republic of Latvia has carefully examined the ‘understanding’ made by the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon accession.
Thus, the Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that the understanding is in fact a unilateral act deemed to limit the scope of application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and therefore, it shall be regarded as a reservation.
Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia has noted that the understanding does not make it clear to what extent the People’s Republic of Bangladesh considers itself bound by the provisions of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and whether the way of implementation of the provisions of the aforementioned Convention is in line with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of the Republic of Latvia therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.
However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism between the Republic of Latvia and the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Thus, the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism will become operative without People’s Republic of Bangladesh benefiting from its reservation.
Malaysia
Declarations and reservation:
The Government of Malaysia declares, pursuant to article 2 (2) (a) of the Convention, that in the application of the Convention to Malaysia, the Convention shall be deemed not to include the treaties listed in the Annex to the Convention which Malaysia is not a party thereto.
In accordance with Article 7 (3) of the Convention, the Government of Malaysia declares that it has established jurisdiction in accordance with its domestic laws over the offences set forth in Article 2 of the Convention in all the cases provided for in Article 7 (1) and 7 (2).
The Government of Malaysia understands Article 10 (1) of the Convention to include the right of the competent authorities to decide not to submit any particular case for prosecution before the judicial authorities if the alleged offender is dealt with under national security and preventive detention laws.
(a) Pursuant to Article 24 (2) of the Convention, the Government of Malaysia declares that it does not consider itself bound by article 24 (1) of the Convention; and (b) The Government of Malaysia reserves the right specifically to agree in a particular case to follow the arbitration procedure set forth in Article 24 (1) of the Convention or any other procedure for arbitration.
Netherlands
20 May 2005
With regard to the reservation made by Belgium upon ratification:
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservation made by the Government of Belgium regarding Article 14 of the International Convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism made at the time of its ratification of the Convention.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that the reservation made by the Government of Belgium is expressed to apply only “in exceptional circumstances” and that, notwithstanding the application of the reservation, Belgium continues to be bound by the general legal principle of aut dedere aut judicare. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands further notes that the exceptional circumstances that are envisaged in paragraph 1 of the reservation made by the Government of Belgium are not specified in the reservation.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the offences set forth in Article 2 of the Convention to be of such grave nature, that the provisions of Article 14 should apply in all circumstances.
Furthermore the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls the principle that claims of political motivation must not be recognised as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of Belgium to the International Convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, without Belgium benefiting from its reservation.
30 August 2005
With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the declaration made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon ratification of the Convention relating to Article 2 paragraph 1 (b) thereof. It is of the opinion that this declaration amounts to a reservation, since its purpose is to unilaterally limit the scope of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is furthermore of the opinion that the declaration is in contradiction to the object and purpose of the Convention, in particular the object of suppressing the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be committed.
The declaration is further contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a convention are not permissible.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the above-mentioned declaration by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Arab Republic of Egypt.
With regard to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon accession to the Convention relating to Article 2 paragraph 1 (b) thereof. It is of the opinion that this reservation unilaterally limits the scope of the Convention and is in contradiction to the object and purpose of the Convention, in particular the object of suppressing the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be committed.
The reservation is further contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a convention are not permissible.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Syrian Arab Republic.
25 August 2006
With regard to the understanding made by Bangladesh upon accession:
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the declaration made by the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. The People’s Republic of Bangladesh has declared that its accession to the Convention shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with its international obligations under the Constitution of the country. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the opinion that this declaration raises questions as to which obligations the People’s Republic of Bangladesh intends to give precedence to in the event of any inconsistency between the Convention and its Constitution. Declarations that leave it uncertain to what extent a State consents to be bound by its contractual obligations are in the opinion of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to be treated, in effect, as general reservations, which are not compatible with the object and purpose of a Convention.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the above-mentioned declaration made by the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
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.
4 October 2005
With regard to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:
The Government of Norway has examined the contents of the reservation relating to paragraph 1 (b) of article 2 to the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Syrian Arab Republic.
The Government of Norway considers the reservation to be in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be carried out.
The reservation is, furthermore, contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to adopt measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature.
The Government of Norway wishes to recall that according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties a reservation incompatible with the object and purposes of the Convention shall not be permitted.
It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose and that states are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with the obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Norway therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservations made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the Convention.
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Syrian Arab Republic and Norway. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without the Syrian Arab Republic benefiting from its declaration.
Poland
28 April 2006
With regard to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:
The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism relating to article 2, paragraph 1 (b) thereof.
The Government of the Republic of Poland considers that the reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic unilaterally limits the scope of the Convention and it is, therefore, contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of the Republic of Poland considers that 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 their political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature”.
The Government of the Republic of Poland wishes to recall that according to article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
The Government of the Republic of Poland therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Poland and the Syrian Arab Republic.
2 August 2006
With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:
The Government of the Republic of Poland has examined the explanatory declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism relating to article 2, paragraph 1 (b) thereof.
The Government of the Republic of Poland considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and it is, therefore, contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of the Republic of Poland considers that the declaration to be contrary to the terms of article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to “adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of their political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature”.
The Government of the Republic of Poland wishes to recall that according to article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
The Government of the Republic of Poland therefore objects to the aforesaid declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Financing of Terrorism. However this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Poland and the Arab Republic of Egypt.
Portugal
31 August 2005
With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:
The Government of Portugal considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its object and purpose, which is the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place and who carries them out.
The declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of the Article 6 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to “adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature”.
The Government of Portugal recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and the Arab Republic of Egypt.
With regard to the declaration made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:
The Government of Portugal considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its object and purpose, which is the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place and who carries them out.
The declaration is furthermore contrary to the terms of the Article 6 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to “adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature”.
The Government of Portugal recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.
The Government of Portugal therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Portugal and the Syrian Arab Republic.
Spain
4 April 2006
With regard to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservation entered by the Syrian Arab Republic to article 2, paragraph 1 (b), of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon ratifying that instrument.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that this reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers, in particular, that the reservation entered by the Syrian Arab Republic is incompatible with article 6 of the Convention, whereby States parties undertake to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain recalls that, under the customary-law provision enshrined in article 19 (c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty concerned are not permitted.
Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain objects to the reservation entered by the Syrian Arab Republic to article 2, paragraph 1 (b), of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and the Syrian Arab Republic.
With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the reservation to article 2, paragraph 1 (b), of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the Convention.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that this reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers, in particular, that the reservation made by the Arab Republic of Egypt is contrary to article 6 of the Convention, according to which the States Parties pledge to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (article 19 (c)), a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.
The Government of the Kingdom of Spain therefore objects to the reservation made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to article 2, paragraph 1 (b), of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and the Arab Republic of Egypt.
Sweden
5 October 2005
With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:
The Government of Sweden has examined the explanatory declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, according to which the Arab Republic of Egypt does not consider acts of national resistance in all its forms, including armed resistance against foreign occupation and aggression with a view of liberation and self-determination, as terrorist acts within the meaning of paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention.
The Government of Sweden recalls that the designation assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. The Government of Sweden considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt in substance constitutes a reservation.
The object and purpose of the Convention is to suppress the financing of terrorist acts, including those defined in paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention. Such acts can never be justified with reference to the exercise of people’s right to self-determination.
The Government of Sweden further considers the reservation to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which the States parties are under an obligation to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.
The Government of Sweden wishes to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservation made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Arab Republic of Egypt and Sweden. The Convention enters into force between the Arab Republic of Egypt and Sweden without the Arab Republic of Egypt benefiting from its reservation.
With regard to the declaration made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:
The Government of Sweden has examined the reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, according to which the Syrian Arab Republic considers that acts of resistance to foreign occupation are not included under acts of terrorism within the meaning of paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention.
The object and purpose of the Convention is to suppress the financing of terrorist acts, including those defined in paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention. Such acts can never be justified with reference to the exercise of peoples’ right to self-determination.
The Government of Sweden further considers the reservation to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which the States parties are under an obligation to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.
The Government of Sweden wishes to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Syrian Arab Republic and Sweden. The Convention enters into force between the Syrian Arab Republic and Sweden, without the Syrian Arab Republic benefiting from its reservation.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
20 May 2005
With regard to the reservation made by the Belgium upon ratification:
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have examined the reservation relating to Article 14 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of Belgium at the time of its ratification of the Convention.
The Government of the United Kingdom note that the effect of the said reservation is to disapply the provisions of Article 14 in “exceptional circumstances”. Article 14 provides that:
“None of the offences set forth in Article 2 shall be regarded for the purposes of extradition or mutual legal assistance as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence or as an offence inspired by political motives. Accordingly, a request for extradition or for mutual legal assistance based on such an offence may not be refused on the sole ground that it concerns a political offence or an offence inspired by political motives.”
The Government of the United Kingdom note that the provisions of Article 14 reflect in part the principle that claims of political motivation must not be recognised as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists. The Government of the United Kingdom consider this principle to be an important measure in the fight against terrorism and the provisions of Article 14 of the Convention in particular to be an essential measure in States’ efforts to suppress the financing of terrorist acts.
The Government of the United Kingdom note that paragraph 1 of the reservation made by the Government of Belgium is expressed to apply only “in exceptional circumstances” and that, notwithstanding the application of the reservation, Belgium continues to be bound by the principle of aut dedere aut judicare as set out in Article 10 of the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom note further, however, that the exceptional circumstances that are envisaged are not specified in the reservation.
In light of the grave nature of the offences set forth in Article 2 of the Convention, the Government of the United Kingdom consider that the provisions of Article 14 should apply in all circumstances. A reservation that seeks to disapply Article 14, even while reaffirming the application of the principle of aut dedere aut judicare, undermines the effectiveness of the provisions of Article 14 of the Convention as a measure in States’ efforts to suppress the financing of terrorist acts.
The Government of the United Kingdom therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Belgium to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Kingdom and Belgium.
1 May 2006
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has examined the reservation relating to article 2, paragraph 1(b) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic at the time of its accession to the Convention.
The Government of the United Kingdom objects to the aforesaid reservation.
3 August 2006
With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have examined the explanatory declaration relating to article 2, paragraph 1(b) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom consider the declaration made by Egypt to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis.
The Government of the United Kingdom objects to the aforesaid reservation.
With regard to the understanding made by Bangladesh upon accession:
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have examined the ‘understanding’ of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh at the time of its accession to the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom consider the understanding made by Bangladesh to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis.
The Government of the United Kingdom objects to the aforesaid reservation.
United States of America
9 March 2006
With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:
The Government of the United States of America, after careful review, considers the explanatory declaration made by Egypt to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis. The explanatory declaration is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, namely, the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place and who perpetrates them.
The Government of the United States also considers the explanatory declaration to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, which provides: “Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious, or other similar nature.
The Government of the United States notes that, under established principles of international treaty law, as reflected in Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted.
The Government of the United States of America therefore objects to the explanatory declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 made by Egypt upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection does not, however, preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United States and Egypt.
With regard to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:
The Government of the United States of America, after careful review, considers the reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, namely, the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place and who perpetrates them.
The Government of the United States also considers the reservation 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 explanatory declaration relating to paragraph 1(b) of Article 2 made by the Government of Syria upon accession to 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 the Syrian Arab Republic.
Notifications made under article 7(3)
Argentina
Article 7, paragraph 3:
In relation to article 7, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the Argentine Republic declares that the territorial scope of application of its criminal law is set forth in article 1 of the Argentine Penal Code (Act No. 11,729), which states:
“This Code shall apply:
To offences that are committed or that produce effects in the territory of the Argentine nation, or in places under its jurisdiction;
To offences that are committed abroad by agents or employees of the Argentine authorities during the performance of their duties”.
The Argentine Republic shall therefore exercise jurisdiction over the offences defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (c), and over the offences defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (a), (b) and (d), when they produce effects in the territory of the Argentine Republic or in places under its jurisdiction, or when they were committed abroad by agents or employees of the Argentine authorities during the performance of their duties.
With regard to the offences referred to in article 7, paragraph 2 (e), jurisdiction over such offences shall be exercised in accordance with the legal provisions in force in the Argentine Republic. In this regard, reference should be made to article 199 of the Argentine Aeronautical Code, which states:
“Acts occurring, actions carried out, and offences committed in a private Argentine aircraft over Argentine territory or its jurisdictional waters, or where no State exercises sovereignty, shall be governed by the laws of the Argentine nation and tried by its courts.
Acts occurring, actions carried out, and offences committed on board a private Argentine aircraft over foreign territory shall also fall under the jurisdiction of the Argentine courts and the application of the laws of the nation if a legitimate interest of the Argentine State or of persons domiciled therein are thereby injured or if the first landing, following the act, action or offence, occurs in the Republic”.
Brazil
26 September 2005
The Government of Brazil would like to inform that according to the provisions of Article 7, paragraph 3 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism, by ratifying that instrument the Federative Republic of Brazil will exercise jurisdiction over all hypotheses foreseen in items “a” to “e” of paragraph 2 of the same article.
China
In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 7 of the Convention, the People’s Republic of China has established the jurisdiction over five offences stipulated in paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Convention, but this jurisdiction shall not apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.
Czech Republic
In accordance with article 7, paragraph 3 of the Convention, the Czech Republic notifies that it has established its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 2 of the Convention in all cases referred to in article 7, paragraph 2 of the Convention.
Jamaica
Jamaica has established jurisdiction over the offences set forth in Article 2, with respect to the jurisdiction stated in Article 7(2) (c) which states:
“A State Party may also establish its jurisdiction over any such offence when:
- (c) 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 that State to do or abstain from doing any act”.
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.”
This document does not substitute the official text published in the Irish Statute Book. We accept no responsibility for any inaccuracies arising from the transcription of the original into this format.
This text is published under Irish Statute Book's own terms of reuse, not a Legalize or public-domain licence.
Irish Statute Book
CC-BY 4.0 (Oireachtas Open Data PSI Licence)
Contains Irish Public Sector Information licensed under the Oireachtas (Houses of the Oireachtas) Open Data PSI Licence / Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, sourced from https://www.irishstatutebook.ie.