hat it had decided to withdraw its reservation with regard to article 3 (6) and (9) and article 6 made upon ratification. The reservation reads as follows.
1. Colombia is not bound by article 3, paragraphs 6 and 9, or article 6 of the Convention since they contravene article 35 of the Political Constitution of Colombia regarding the prohibition on extraditing Colombians by birth.
13. On 10 December 1996, the Government of Jamaica informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its declaration made upon accession. The declaration read as follows:
Declaration:
"The Government of Jamaica understands paragraph 11 of article 17 of the said Convention to mean that the consent of the coastal State is required as a precondition for action under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of article 17 of the said Convention in relation to the Exclusive Economic Zone and all other maritime areas under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the coastal State."
14. In regard to the reservation made by Lebanon, the Secretary-General received communications identical in essence, mutatis mutandis, as the one made by France under Objections", from the following Governments on the dates indicated hereinafter:
Participants: Date of the communication:
Austria 11 Jul 1997
Greece 18 Jul 1997
15. On 24 July 1997, the Government of the Philippines informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservations made upon accession, which read as follows:
"[The Government of the Philippines declares] that it does not consider itself bound by the following provisions:
1. "Paragraph 1 (b) (i) and paragraph 2 (a) (ii) of article 4 on jurisdiction;
2. "Paragraph 1 (a) and paragraph 6 (a) and (b) of article 5 on confiscation; and
3. "Paragraph 9 (a) and (b) and 10 of article on extradition."
On that same date, the Government of the Philippines declared the following:
"The Philippines, does not consider itself bound by the mandatory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as provided for in article 32, paragraph 2 of the same Convention."
In keeping with the depositary practice followed in similar cases, the Secretary-General proposed to receive the declaration in question for deposit (in the absence of any objection on the part of any of the Contracting States, either to the deposit itself or to the procedure envisaged) within a period of 90 days from the date of the present notification (3 September 1997). No objection having been recieved within the said period, the above declaration was deemed accepted for deposit upon the expiration of the 90-day period, that is to say on 2 December 1997.
16. In a communication received on 15 January 1999, the Government of Finland notified the Secretary-General of the following:
"The Government of Finland is of the view that [this reservation] raise[s] doubts as to [its] compatibility with the object and purpose of the [Convention] concerned, in particular the [reservation] to article 6, paragraphs 2 and 9. According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and well-established customary international law, a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become Parties are respected as to their object and purpose by all Parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to [this reservation] made by the Government of Viet Nam to the [Convention].
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the [Convention] between Viet Nam and Finland. The [Convention] will thus become operative between the two States without Viet Nam benefittin
> 1 2 3 ... 25 26 27
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
