CHAPTER III

PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES, DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR RELATIONS, ETC2Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized AgenciesNew York, 21 November 1947<superscript>1</superscript>Entry into force2 December 1948, in accordance with section 44. The Convention first entered into force as regards the Netherlands by the deposit of the instrument of accession undertaking to apply the provisions of the Convention to various specialized agencies.Registration16 August 1949, No. 521StatusParties123TextUnited Nations, <i>Treaty Series </i>, vol. 33, p. 261.States that are parties to the Convention are listed in the <i>Participant </i> table below. For the lists of States applying the provisions of the Convention to the respective specialised agencies, see chapters III.2.1 to III.2.17.

Participant<superscript>2,3</superscript>Accession(a), Succession(d)Albania15 Dec 2003 aAlgeria25 Mar 1964 aAngola 9 May 2012 aAntigua and Barbuda14 Dec 1988 dArgentina10 Oct 1963 aAustralia 9 May 1986 aAustria21 Jul 1950 aBahamas17 Mar 1977 dBahrain17 Sep 1992 aBarbados19 Nov 1971 aBelarus18 Mar 1966 aBelgium14 Mar 1962 aBosnia and Herzegovina<superscript>2</superscript> 1 Sep 1993 dBotswana 5 Apr 1983 aBrazil22 Mar 1963 aBulgaria13 Jun 1968 aBurkina Faso 6 Apr 1962 aCambodia15 Oct 1953 aCameroon30 Apr 1992 aCentral African Republic15 Oct 1962 aChile21 Sep 1951 aChina<superscript>4</superscript>11 Sep 1979 aCôte d'Ivoire 8 Sep 1961 aCroatia<superscript>2</superscript>12 Oct 1992 dCuba13 Sep 1972 aCyprus 6 May 1964 dCzech Republic<superscript>5</superscript>22 Feb 1993 dDemocratic Republic of the Congo 8 Dec 1964 aDenmark25 Jan 1950 aDominica24 Jun 1988 aEcuador 8 Jun 1951 aEgypt28 Sep 1954 aEstonia 8 Oct 1997 aFiji21 Jun 1971 dFinland31 Jul 1958 aFrance 2 Aug 2000 aGabon29 Jun 1961 aGambia 1 Aug 1966 dGeorgia18 Jul 2007 aGermany<superscript>6,7,8</superscript>10 Oct 1957 aGhana 9 Sep 1958 aGreece21 Jun 1977 aGuatemala30 Jun 1951 aGuinea 1 Jul 1959 aGuyana13 Sep 1973 aHaiti16 Apr 1952 aHonduras16 Aug 2012 aHungary 2 Aug 1967 aIceland17 Jan 2006 aIndia10 Feb 1949 aIndonesia 8 Mar 1972 aIran (Islamic Republic of)16 May 1974 aIraq 9 Jul 1954 aIreland10 May 1967 aItaly30 Aug 1985 aJamaica 4 Nov 1963 aJapan18 Apr 1963 aJordan12 Dec 1950 aKenya 1 Jul 1965 aKuwait13 Nov 1961 aLao People's Democratic Republic 9 Aug 1960 aLatvia19 Dec 2005 aLesotho26 Nov 1969 aLibya30 Apr 1958 aLithuania10 Feb 1997 aLuxembourg20 Sep 1950 aMadagascar 3 Jan 1966 aMalawi 2 Aug 1965 aMalaysia29 Mar 1962 dMaldives26 May 1969 aMali24 Jun 1968 aMalta27 Jun 1968 dMauritius18 Jul 1969 dMongolia 3 Mar 1970 aMontenegro<superscript>9</superscript>23 Oct 2006 dMorocco28 Apr 1958 aMozambique 6 Oct 2011 aNepal<superscript>10</superscript>23 Feb 1954 aNetherlands 2 Dec 1948 aNew Zealand<superscript>11</superscript>25 Nov 1960 aNicaragua 6 Apr 1959 aNiger15 May 1968 aNigeria26 Jun 1961 dNorway25 Jan 1950 aPakistan23 Jul 1951 aParaguay13 Jan 2006 aPhilippines20 Mar 1950 aPoland19 Jun 1969 aPortugal 8 Nov 2012 aRepublic of Korea13 May 1977 aRepublic of Moldova 2 Sep 2011 aRomania15 Sep 1970 aRussian Federation10 Jan 1966 aRwanda15 Apr 1964 aSan Marino21 Feb 2013 aSenegal 2 Mar 1966 aSerbia<superscript>2</superscript>12 Mar 2001 dSeychelles24 Jul 1985 aSierra Leone13 Mar 1962 dSingapore18 Mar 1966 dSlovakia<superscript>5</superscript>28 May 1993 dSlovenia<superscript>2</superscript> 6 Jul 1992 dSouth Africa30 Aug 2002 aSpain26 Sep 1974 aSt. Lucia 2 Sep 1986 aSweden12 Sep 1951 aSwitzerland25 Sep 2012 aThailand30 Mar 1956 aThe former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia<superscript>2</superscript>11 Mar 1996 dTogo15 Jul 1960 aTonga17 Mar 1976 dTrinidad and Tobago19 Oct 1965 aTunisia 3 Dec 1957 aUganda11 Aug 1983 aUkraine13 Apr 1966 aUnited Arab Emirates11 Dec 2003 aUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland<superscript>4</superscript>16 Aug 1949 aUnited Republic of Tanzania29 Oct 1962 aUruguay29 Dec 1977 aUzbekistan18 Feb 1997 aVanuatu 2 Jan 2008 aZambia16 Jun 1975 dZimbabwe 5 Mar 1991 aBahrain"The accession by the State of Bahrain to the said Convention shall in no way constitute recognition of Israel or be a cause for the establishment of any relations of any kind herewith."Belarus<superscript>12</superscript>The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic does not consider itself 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 Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic 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.Bulgaria<superscript>12,13</superscript>China<superscript>12</superscript>The Government of the People's Republic of China has reservations on the provisions of section 32, article IX, of the said Convention.Côte d'Ivoire<right>28 December 1961</right>It is not possible for any Government fully to comply with the requirements of section 11 of that Convention in so far as it requires the specialized agency to enjoy in the territory of a State party to the Convention treatment not less favourable than that accorded by the Government of that State to any other Government in the matter of priorities and rates on telecommunications, unless and until all other Governments collaborate in according this treatment to the agency in question. It is understood that this matter is being discussed in the International Telecommunication Union.Cuba<superscript>12</superscript>The Revolutionary Government of Cuba does not consider itself bound by the provisions of sections 24 and 32 of the Convention, under which the International Court of Justice has compulsory jurisdiction in disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention. Concerning the competence of the International Court of Justice in such disputes, Cuba takes the position 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 also applies to the provision of section 32 requiring the parties concerned to accept the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice as decisive.Czech Republic<superscript>5,12</superscript>FranceReservations:Only property, funds and assets belonging to agencies, administered by them and earmarked for the functions assigned to them under the agreements by which they were established, and to which France has acceded, shall enjoy the privileges and immunities provided for in the Convention.When an official of the agencies who does not have the same status as a member of the diplomatic staff under the Convention commits a traffic violation or causes a road accident, the privileges and immunities shall not apply.The provisions of section 11 concerning facilities in respect of communications shall not apply to the specialized agencies.Officials employed abroad and resident in France shall be subject to the provisions of the law applicable in France with respect to entry and stay in the national territory.The privileges and immunities, exemptions and facilities accorded to the executive head of each agency in reference to diplomatic envoys shall not be extended to any other official, except one acting on the former's behalf during his absence from duty.The privileges and immunities of experts sent on mission to the specialized agencies shall not exceed those accorded to officials of the specialized agencies.France shall not be bound by the provisions of section 32 concerning the International Court of Justice, except where a prior attempt to settle the difference amicably has failed.Interpretative declaration:In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Convention and the provisions of the individual agreements concluded between the specialized agencies and France, the provisions of these agreements shall have precedence.GabonIt is not possible for any Government fully to comply with the requirements of section 11 of that Convention in so far as it requires the specialized agency to enjoy in the territory of a State party to the Convention treatment not less favourable than that accorded by the Government of that State to any other Government in the matter of priorities and rates on telecommunications, unless and until all other Governments collaborate in according this treatment to the agency in question. It is understood that this matter is being discussed in the International Telecommunication Union.Germany<superscript>6,8,14</superscript>"The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany takes the liberty of calling attention to the fact that the provisions of section 11 of article IV of the Convention, to the effect that the specialized agencies shall enjoy, in the territory of each State party to this Convention, for their official communications, treatment not less favourable than that accorded by the Government of such State to any other Government in the matter of priorities, rates and other taxes, cannot be fully complied with by any Government. Reference is made to the provisions of article 37 and of annex 3 of the International Telecommunication Convention concluded at Buenos Aires in 1952, as well as to the resolutions Nos. 27 and 28 appended to that Convention."Hungary<superscript>12,14</superscript>Indonesia<superscript>12,15</superscript>"(1) Article II (b) section 3: The capacity of the specialized agencies to acquire and dispose of immovable property shall be exercised with due regard to national laws and regulations."(2) Article IX section 32: With regard to the competence of the International Court of Justice in disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, the Government of Indonesia reserves the right to maintain that in every individual case the agreement of the parties to the dispute is required before the Court for a ruling."ItalyDeclaration:In the event that some of the specialized agencies which are mentioned in the instrument of accession and to which Italy undertakes to apply the Convention should decide to establish their headquarters or their regional offices in Italian territory, the Italian Government will be able to avail itself of the option of concluding with such agencies, in accordance with Section 39 of the Convention supplemental agreements specifying, in particular, the limits within which immunity from jurisdiction may be granted to a given agency or immunity from jurisdiction and exemption from taxation granted to officials of that agency.Lithuania<superscript>16</superscript>"... The Government of the Republic of Lithuania has made the reservation in respect of article 2 (3) (b), that the specialized agencies shall not be entitled to acquire land in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania, in view of the land regulations laid down by the Article 47 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania."MadagascarThe Malagasy Government will not be able to comply fully with the provisions of article IV, section 11, of the Convention, which states that the specialized agencies shall enjoy, in the territory of each State party to the Convention, for their official communications, treatment not 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, until such time as all Governments decide to co-operate by according such treatment to the agencies in question.Mongolia<superscript>12,17</superscript>New Zealand"The Government of New Zealand, in common with other Governments, cannot give full effect to article IV, section 11, of the Convention, which requires that the specialized agencies shall enjoy, in the territory of each State party to the Convention, for their official communications, treatment not less favourable than the treatment accorded by the Government of such a State to any other Government in the matter of priorities, rates and taxes on telecommunications, as long as all Governments have not decided to co-operate in granting this treatment to the agencies in question."It is noted that this matter has been receiving the consideration of the United Nations and of the International Telecommunication Union. It is also noted that the final text of the annex of the Convention approved by the International Telecommunication Union, and transmitted by the Union to the Secretary- General of the United Nations in accordance with section 36 of the Convention, contains a statement that the Union would not claim for itself the enjoyment of privileged treatment with regard to the facilities in respect of communications provided in section 11 of the Convention."Norway<right>20 September 1951</right>"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."PakistanDeclaration 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<superscript>12,18</superscript>Romania<superscript>12</superscript>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<superscript>12</superscript>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<superscript>5,12</superscript>South AfricaReservations:"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 being an Authorized Dealer, unless exemption from Exchange Control Regulation 5 has been authorized (Mining Houses and Mining Producers may elect to sell their total gold holdings to the approved counter parties, including foreign counter parties, provided that the Exchange Control Department of the South African Reserve Bank has given the necessary exemption from the aforementioned regulation).2. Pending a decision by the Government of the Republic of South Africa on the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the Government of the Republic does not consider itself bound by the terms of Article IX, Section 32 of the Convention which provides for the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in differences arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention. The Republic will adhere to the position that, for the submission of a particular dispute for settlement by the International Court, the consent of all the parties to the dispute is required in every individual case. This reservation is equally applicable to the provisions contained in the said section, which stipulate that the advisory opinion of the International Court is to be accepted as decisive."Ukraine<superscript>12</superscript>The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic does not consider itself 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 Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic 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.United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"It is not possible for any Government fully to comply with the requirements of Section 11 of that Convention in so far as it requires the Specialized Agency to enjoy in the territory of a state party to the Convention treatment not less favourable than that accorded by the Government of that state to any other Government in the matter of priorities and rates on telecommunications, unless and until all other Governments collaborate in according this treatment to the Agency in question. It is understood that this matter is being discussed in the International Telecommunication Union."<right>17 December 1954</right>"With regard to the Universal Postal Union and the World Meteorological Organization, ... no Government can fully comply with Section 11 of this Convention which requires that the specialized agencies shall enjoy, in the territory of each State party to the Convention, for their official communications, treatment not less favourable than that accorded by the Government of such a State to any other Government in the matter of priorities, rates and taxes on telecommunications so long as all the other Governments have not decided to co-operate in granting this treatment to the agencies in question. This matter is under consideration by the United Nations and the International Telecommunication Union."The final text of the annex to the Convention approved by the International Telecommunication Union and transmitted by the Union to the Secretary-General of the United Nations in accordance with Section 36 of the Convention contains a statement that the Union would not claim for itself the enjoyment of privileged treatment with regard to the facilities in respect of communications provided in Section 11 of the Convention."<right>4 November 1959</right>"Her Majesty's Government observe [in connection with its notification of application to the International Maritime Organisation] that it would be impracticable for any Government fully to comply with Section 11 of the Convention which requires that the Specialized Agencies shall enjoy, in the territory of each State party to the Convention, for their official communications, treatment not 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, until such time as all the other Governments have decided to co-operate in granting this treatment to the agencies in question. This matter is under consideration by the United Nations and the International Telecommunication Union."Netherlands<superscript>19</superscript><right>11 January 1980</right>"The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has noted the reservation made on the accession of China to the Convention on the privileges and immunities of the specialized agencies, and is of the opinion that the reservation mentioned, and similar reservations other States have made in the past or may make in the future, are incompatible with the objectives and purposes of the Convention.The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does, however, not wish to raise a formal objection to these reservations made by States parties to the Convention."

ParticipantDate of receipt of the notificationTerritories

Germany10 Oct 1957Land Berlin10 Oct 1957Saar1Resolution 179 (II); <i>Official Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly, Resolutions </i> (A/519), p. 112.2The former Yugoslavia had acceeded to the Convention on 23 November 1951. See also note 1 under “Bosnia and Herzegovina”, “Croatia”, “former Yugoslavia”, “Slovenia”, “The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and “Yugoslavia” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.3<b>Final texts or revised texts of annexes transmitted to the Secretary-General by the specialized agencies concerned and dates of their receipt by the Secretary-General</b> 1. Annex I--International Labour Organisation (ILO) 14 Sep 1948 2. Annex II--Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 13 Dec 1948 a) Revised text of annex II 26 May 1960 b) Second revised text of annex II 28 Dec 1965 3. Annex III--International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 11 Aug 1948 4. Annex IV--United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 7 Feb 1949 5. Annex V--International Monetary Fund (IMF) 9 May 1949 6. Annex VI--International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) 29 Apr 1949 7. Annex VII--World Health Organization (WHO) 2 Aug 1948 a) Revised text of annex VII 5 Jun 1950 b) Second revised text of annex VII 1 Jul 1957 c) Third revised text of annex VII 25 Jul 1958 8. Annex VIII--Universal Postal Union (UPU) 11 Jul 1949 9. Annex IX--International Telecommunication Union (ITU) 16 Jan 1951 10. Annex X--International Refugee Organization (IRO)2 4 Apr 1949 11. Annex XI--World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 29 Dec 1951 12. Annex XII--International Maritime Organization (IMO) 12 Feb 1959 a) Revised text of annex XII 9 Jul 1968 b) Second revised text of annex XII 21 Nov 2001 13. Annex XIII--International Finance Corporation (IFC) 22 Apr 1959 14. Annex XIV--International Development Association (IDA) 15 Feb 1962 15. Annex XV--World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 19 Oct 1977 16. Annex XVI--International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) 16 Dec 1977 17. Annex XVII--United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) 15 Sep 19874See note 2 under “China” and note 2 under “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” regarding Hong Kong in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.5Czechoslovakia had acceded to the Convention on 29 December 1966 in respect of the following agencies: ILO, ICAO, UNESCO, WHO, UPU, ITU, WMO and IMO. Subsequently, on 6 September 1988 and 26 April 1991, the Government of Czechoslovakia notified the Secretary-General that it applied the Convention in respect of FAO (second revised text of annex II), WIPO, and UNIDO, and IMF, IBRD, IFC and IDA, respectively. The instrument of accession also contained a reservation, subsequently withdrawn on 26 April 1991. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, <i>Treaty Series</i>, vol. 586, p. 247. See also note 12 in this chapter and note 1 under “Czech Republic” and note 1 under “Slovakia” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.6The German Democratic Republic had acceded to the Convention, with a reservation, on 4 October 1974 in respect of the following specialized agencies: ILO, UNESCO, WHO (third revised text of annex VII), UPU, ITU, WMO, IMO (revised text of annex XII). For the text of the reservation see United Nations, <i>Treaty Series </i>, vol. 950, p. 357. See also note 12 in this chapter and note 2 under “Germany” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.7In a communication received by the Secretary-General on 10 October 1957, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany declared that the Convention will also apply to the Saar Territory except that Section 7 (b) of the Convention shall not take effect with regard to the Saar Territory until the expiration of the interim period defined in article 3 of the Treaty of 27 October 1956 between France and the Federal Republic of Germany.8See note 1 under “Germany” regarding Berlin (West) in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.9See note 1 under “Montenegro” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.10The instrument of accession by the Government of Nepal was deposited with the Director-General of the World Health Organization, in accordance with section 42 of the Convention.11See note 1 under "New Zealand" " regarding Tokelau in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.12The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland notified the Secretary-General, on the dates indicated, that it is unable to accept certain reservations made by the States listed below because in its view they are not of the kind which intending parties to the Convention have the right to make: 2Date of receipt of the objection:With respect to reservation by: 20 Jun 1967Belarus 20 Jun 1967Czecholsvakia 20 Jun 1967Ukraine 20 Jun 1967Russian Federation 11 Jan 1968Hungary 12 Aug 1968Bulgaria 2 Dec 1969Poland 17 Aug 1970Mongolia 30 Nov 1970Romania 21 Sep 1972Indonesia 1 Nov 1972Cuba 20 Nov 1974Germany 6 Nov 1979China 21 Apr 1983Hungary 13On 24 June 1992, the Government of Bulgaria notified the Secretary-General its decision to withdraw the reservation made upon accession. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, <i>Treaty Series</i>, vol. 638, p. 266.14In a communication received on 8 December 1989, the Government of Hungary notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservations in respect of sections 24 and 32 of the Convention made upon accession. For the text of the reservations, see United Nations, <i>Treaty Series </i>, vol. 602, p. 300.15In a communication received on 10 January 1973, the Government of Indonesia informed the Secretary-General, in reference to the reservation [concerning the capacity to acquire and dispose of immovable property] that it would grant to the Specialized Agencies the same privileges and immunities which it had granted to the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.16By 4 December 1998, the date on which the period specified for the notification of objections by the Specialized Agencies concerned to the reservation made by Lithuania upon accession expired, no objection had been notified to the Secretary-General. Consequently, the instrument of accession by the Government of Lithuania, including the reservation, was deposited with the Secretary General on 10 February 1997.17Subsequently, in a communication received on 19 July 1990, the Government of Mongolia notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation made upon accession. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, <i>Treaty Series</i>, vol. 719, p. 274.18On 16 October 1997, the Government of Poland notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation with regard to sections 24 and 32 of the Convention made upon accession. For the text of the reservation see United Nations, <i>Treaty Series </i>, vol. 677, p. 430.19In a communication received by the Secretary-General on 28 January 1980, the Government of the Netherlands indicated that the statement concerning their wish not to raise a formal objection to these reservations"... is intended to mean that the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not oppose the entry into force of the Convention between itself and the reserving states."