«Статус Римского статута Международного уголовного суда (Рим, 17 июля 1998 года)» [рус., англ.] (по состоянию на 15.05.2009)

e declarations, in particular the statement that "as a State party to the Rome Statute, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay shall ensure its application to the full extent of the powers of the State insofar as it is competent in that respect and in strict accordance with the Constitutional provisions of the Republic." Such a statement, without further specification, has to be considered in substance as a reservation which raises doubts as to the commitment of Uruguay to the object and purpose of the Statute.
The Government of Finland would like to recall Article 120 of the Rome Statute and the general principle relating to internal law and observance of treaties, according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Statute between Finland and Uruguay. The Statute will thus become operative between the two states without Uruguay benefiting from its reservation."

Germany
7 July 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Uruguay upon ratification:
"The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the Interpretative Declaration to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court made by the Government of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay at the time of its ratification of the Statute.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that the Interpretative Declaration with regard to the compatibility of the rules of the Statute with the provisions of the Constitution of Uruguay is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Statute on a unilateral basis. As it is provided in article 120 of the Statute that no reservation may be made to the Statute, this reservation should not be made.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the aforementioned "declaration" made by the Government of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Statute between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay."

Netherlands
8 July 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Uruguay upon ratification:
"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the interpretative declaration made by the Government of Uruguay and regards the declaration made by the Government of Uruguay to effectively be a reservation.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that the application of the Statute by the Government of Uruguay will be limited by the bounds of national legislation. The reservation made by Uruguay therefore raises doubts as to the commitment of Uruguay to the object and purpose of the Statute.
Article 120 of the Statute precludes reservations.
On these two grounds the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by Uruguay to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Statute between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Uruguay. The Statute will be effective between the two States, without Uruguay benefiting from its reservation."

Sweden
7 July 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Uruguay upon ratification:
"The Government of Sweden has examined the interpretative declaration made by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay upon ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (the Statute).
The Government of Sweden recalls that the designation assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is exc



> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 25 26 27

	Поделиться:	Tweet