UNTC

Objections

(Unless otherwise indicated, the objections were made upon
ratification, accession or succession.)


Austria Austria 16 May 2018 WIth regard to the declaration made by Myanmar upon ratification: “The Government of Austria has carefully examined the declaration made by the Republic of the Union of Myanmar upon ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 16 December 1966. It considers this declaration to amount to a reservation of a general and indeterminate scope, as it aims at applying a provision of the Covenant only in conformity with the Constitution of Myanmar. However, the Covenant is to be applied in accordance with international law, not in accordance with the legislation of a particular state. For this reason, Austria considers the reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and objects to it. This objection shall however not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Austria and the Republic of the Union of Myanmar. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without Myanmar benefitting from the aforementioned reservation. Finally, Austria wishes to point out that it does not share the narrow interpretation of the right of self-determination expressed by Myanmar, i.e. that it were excluded that this right ‘apply to any section of people within a sovereign independent state’. At the same time, Austria also underlines the fundamental difference between the right of self-determination and a claim to secession, taking into account the various ways of exercising the right of self-determination including by way of autonomy within a sovereign state.” 16 May 2019 With regard to the reservation and statement made by Qatar upon accession: “The Government of Austria has carefully examined the reservation and statement made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Austria considers the statement concerning Article 8 to amount to a reservation as it aims at applying a provision of the Covenant only in conformity with national legislation. However, the Covenant is to be applied in accordance with international law, not only in accordance with the legislation of a particular state. By referring to its national legislation or to the Islamic sharia, Qatar’s reservations to Article 3 and Article 8 of the Covenant are of a general and indeterminate scope. These reservations do not clearly define for the other States Parties the extent to which the reserving state has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. Furthermore, the reservation to Article 3 seeks to exclude, at least partly, the application of one of the most central provisions which is related to all rights set forth in the Covenant. Austria therefore considers both reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and objects to them. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Austria and the State of Qatar. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without Qatar benefitting from the aforementioned reservations.”

Austria

16 May 2018

WIth regard to the declaration made by Myanmar upon ratification:

“The Government of Austria has carefully examined the declaration made by the Republic of the Union of Myanmar upon ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 16 December 1966. It considers this declaration to amount to a reservation of a general and indeterminate scope, as it aims at applying a provision of the Covenant only in conformity with the Constitution of Myanmar. However, the Covenant is to be applied in accordance with international law, not in accordance with the legislation of a particular state.

For this reason, Austria considers the reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and objects to it. This objection shall however not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Austria and the Republic of the Union of Myanmar. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without Myanmar benefitting from the aforementioned reservation.

Finally, Austria wishes to point out that it does not share the narrow interpretation of the right of self-determination expressed by Myanmar, i.e. that it were excluded that this right ‘apply to any section of people within a sovereign independent state’. At the same time, Austria also underlines the fundamental difference between the right of self-determination and a claim to secession, taking into account the various ways of exercising the right of self-determination including by way of autonomy within a sovereign state.”

16 May 2019

With regard to the reservation and statement made by Qatar upon accession:

“The Government of Austria has carefully examined the reservation and statement made by the State of Qatar upon accession to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Austria considers the statement concerning Article 8 to amount to a reservation as it aims at applying a provision of the Covenant only in conformity with national legislation. However, the Covenant is to be applied in accordance with international law, not only in accordance with the legislation of a particular state.

By referring to its national legislation or to the Islamic sharia, Qatar’s reservations to Article 3 and Article 8 of the Covenant are of a general and indeterminate scope. These reservations do not clearly define for the other States Parties the extent to which the reserving state has accepted the obligations of the Covenant. Furthermore, the reservation to Article 3 seeks to exclude, at least partly, the application of one of the most central provisions which is related to all rights set forth in the Covenant.

Austria therefore considers both reservations to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant and objects to them. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Covenant between the Republic of Austria and the State of Qatar. The Covenant will thus become operative between the two states without Qatar benefitting from the aforementioned reservations.”