Home Page

League of Nations, Treaty Series , vol.143, p.317.

All the parties to this Convention have agreed to consider the instrument of ratification deposited by this country, after the date stipulated in the Convention, as valid. The Japanese Government however, is of opinion that this ratification has the character of an accession.

See note 1 under “Netherlands” regarding Aruba/Netherlands Antilles in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.

The ratification was made subject to the reservation that the provisions of the Convention do not apply to the colonial territory of Portugal (see League of Nations,  Treaty Series , vol. 143, p. 319). In a communication received on 18 August 1953, the Government of Portugal notified the Secretary-General of the withdrawal of that reservation.

Subsequently,  the Secretary-General received, on 29 September 1999 and 19 October 1999, communications concerning the status of Macao from Portugal and China (note 3 under “China” and note 1 under “Portugal” regarding Macao in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume. Upon resuming the excercise of sovereignty over Macao, China notified the Secretary-General that the Convention and Protocol will also apply to the Macao Special Administrative Region.

According to a declaration made by the Swiss Government when depositing the instrument of ratification of this Convention, the latter was to take effect, in respect of Switzerland, only after the adoption of a law revising Sections XXIV to XXXIII of the Federal Code of Obligations or, if necessary, of a special law regarding bills of exchange, promissory notes and cheques.  The law above referred to having entered into force on July 1st, 1937, the Convention took effect for Switzerland, as from that date.

See note 1 under “Czech Republic” and note 1 under “Slovakia” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.

See note 1 under “former Yugoslavia” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.

In a notification received on 21 February 1974, the Government of the German Democratic Republic stated that the German Democratic Republic had declared the reapplication of the Convention as of 6 June 1958.

In this connection, the Secretary-General received, on 13 January 1976, the following communication from the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany:

With reference to the communication by the German Democratic Republic of 31 January 1974 concerning the applica tion, as from 6 June 1958, of the Convention of 7 June 1930 for the Settlement of Certain Conflicts of Laws in connection with Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany declares that in the relation between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic the declaration of application has no retroactive effect beyond 21June 1973.

Subsequently, in a communication received on 28 April 1976, the Government of the German Democratic Republic declared:

"The Government of the German Democratic Republic takes the view that in accordance with the applicable rules of international law and the international practice of States the regulations on the reapplication of agreements concluded under international law are an internal affair of the successor State concerned.  Accordingly, the German Democratic Republic was entitled to determine the date of reapplication of the Convention for the Settlement of Certain Conflicts of Laws in Connection with Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes of 7 June 1930 to which it acceded on the basis of the succession of States."

See also note 2 regarding “Germany” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.