«Статус Конвенции о привилегиях и иммунитетах специализированных учреждений (Нью-Йорк, 21 ноября 1947 года)» [рус., англ.] (по состоянию на 19.05.2009)

of the Convention."

Norway
20 September 1951
"The Norwegian Government is of the opinion that it is impossible for any government to comply fully with Section 11 of the said Convention, which requires that the Specialized Agencies shall enjoy, in the territory of each state party to the Convention, for their official communications, treatment no less favourable than that accorded by the Government of such State to any other Government in the matter of priorities, rates and taxes on telecommunications as long as all governments have not agreed to grant to the agency in question, the treatment specified in this Section."

Pakistan
Declaration contained in the notification received on 15 September 1961 and also, with the second paragraph omitted, in the notifications received on 13 March 1962 and 17 July 1962:
"The enjoyment by Specialized Agencies of the communication privileges provided for in Article IV, Section 11 of the Convention cannot, in practice, be determined by unilateral action of individual Governments and has in fact been determined by the International Telecommunication Convention, Atlantic City, 1947 and Telegraph and Telephone Regulations annexed thereto, Pakistan would, therefore, not be able to comply with the provisions of Article IV, Section 11 of the Convention in view of Resolution No. 28 (annexure I) passed at the Plenipotentiary Conference of the International Telecommunication Union, held in Buenos Aires in 1952.
"The International Telecommunication Union shall not claim for itself the communication privileges provided in Article IV, Section 11 of the Convention."

Poland <12>, <18>

Romania <12>
The Socialist Republic of Romania states that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of sections 24 and 32, whereby the question whether an abuse of a privilege or immunity has occurred, and differences arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention and disputes between specialized agencies and Member States, shall be referred to the International Court of Justice. The position of the Socialist Republic of Romania is that such questions, differences or disputes may be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the agreement of the parties in each individual case.

Russian Federation <12>
Declaration made upon accession and also contained in the notification received on 16 November 1972:
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not consider it self bound by the provisions of sections 24 and 32 of the Convention, concerning the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Concerning the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention, the USSR will maintain the same position as hitherto, namely, that for any dispute to be referred to the International Court of Justice for settlement, the agreement of all Parties involved in the dispute must be obtained in each individual case. This reservation similarly applies to the provision contained in section 32, stipulating that the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice shall be accepted as decisive.

Slovakia <5>, <12>

South Africa
Reservations:
"1. The Government of the Republic of South Africa does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article III, Section 7 in so far as it relates to the buying, selling and holding of gold as certain limitations exist in the Republic regarding the buying, selling and holding of gold.
Explanatory note: the buying, selling and holding of gold in the Republic is regulated. In terms of Exchange Control Regulation 2 no person other than an Authorized Dealer may buy or borrow any gold from, or sell, to any person not bei



> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11 ... 12 13

	Поделиться:	Tweet