UNTC

Objections

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


Finland Finland 25 July 1991 With regard to the reservation made by Indonesia upon ratification concerning articles 1, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22 and 29: "In the view of the Government of Finland this reservation is subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty. For the above reason the Government of Finland objects to the said reservation. However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between Finland and the Republic of Indonesia." Subsequently, the Secretary-General received, from the Government of Finland, objections of the same nature as the one above with regard to reservations made by the following States on the dates indicated hereinafter: - 25 July 1991: with regard to the reservation made by Pakistan upon signature and confirmed upon ratification; - 9 June 1993: with regard to the reservation made by Qatar upon signature; - 24 June 1994: with regard to the reservations made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon ratification; - 5 September 1995: with regard to the reservation made by Iran (Islamic Republic of) upon ratification. 14 June 1996 With regard to the reservations made by Malaysia upon accession: "The reservation made by Malaysia covers several central provisions of the [said Convention]. The broad nature of the said reservation leaves open to what extent Malaysia commits itself to the Convention and to the fulfilment of its obligations under the Convention. In the view of the Government of Finland reservations of such comprehensive nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties. The Government of Finland also recalls that the said reservation is subject to the general principle of the observance of the treaties according to which a party may not invoke its internal law, much less its national policies, as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of the States that contracting parties to international treaties are prepared to undertake the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfil the object and purpose of the treaty. Moreover, the internal legislation as well as the national policies are also subject to changes which might further expand the unknown effects of the reservation. In its present formulation the reservation is clearly incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore inadmissible under article 51, paragraph 2, of the [said Convention]. Therefore the Government of Finland objects to such reservation. The Government of Finland further notes that the reservation made by the Government of Malaysia is devoid of legal effect. The Government of Finland recommends the Government of Malaysia to reconsider its reservation to the [said Convention]." With regard to the reservations made by Qatar upon ratification: [Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made with regard to Malaysia.] 26 November 1996 With regard to the reservations made by Singapore upon accession: "The reservations made in paragraphs 2 and 3 by the Republic of Singapore, consisting of a general reference to national law without stating unequivocally the provisions the legal effect of which may be excluded or modified, do not clearly define to the other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore create doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the said Convention. Reservations of such unspecified nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties. The Government of Finland also recalls that these reservations of the Republic of Singapore are subject to the general principle of observance of treaties according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of States that Parties to international treaties are prepared to take the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfil the object and purpose of the treaty. The Government of Finland considers that in their present formulation these reservations made by the Republic of Singapore are incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention and therefore, inadmissible under article 51, paragraph 2, of the said Convention. In view of the above, the Government of Finland objects to these reservations and notes that they are devoid of legal effect" 6 February 1998 With regard to the reservations made by Oman upon accession: [Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made with regard to Singapore.] 26 April 2016 With regard to the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia upon ratification: “The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia concerning the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Government of Finland notes that a general reference to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia raises doubts as to the commitment of the Federal Republic of Somalia to fulfill its obligations under the Convention. Such reservations are also subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations. In [the] view of the Government of Finland, the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. According to Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, such reservations shall not be permitted. Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Finland and the Federal Republic of Somalia. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without the Federal Republic of Somalia benefitting from its reservations.”

Finland

25 July 1991

With regard to the reservation made by Indonesia upon ratification concerning articles 1, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22 and 29:

"In the view of the Government of Finland this reservation is subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty. For the above reason the Government of Finland objects to the said reservation. However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between Finland and the Republic of Indonesia."

Subsequently, the Secretary-General received, from the Government of Finland, objections of the same nature as the one above with regard to reservations made by the following States on the dates indicated hereinafter:

- 25 July 1991: with regard to the reservation made by Pakistan upon signature and confirmed upon ratification;

- 9 June 1993: with regard to the reservation made by Qatar upon signature;

- 24 June 1994: with regard to the reservations made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon ratification;

- 5 September 1995: with regard to the reservation made by Iran (Islamic Republic of) upon ratification.

14 June 1996

With regard to the reservations made by Malaysia upon accession:

"The reservation made by Malaysia covers several central provisions of the [said Convention]. The broad nature of the said reservation leaves open to what extent Malaysia commits itself to the Convention and to the fulfilment of its obligations under the Convention. In the view of the Government of Finland reservations of such comprehensive nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.

The Government of Finland also recalls that the said reservation is subject to the general principle of the observance of the treaties according to which a party may not invoke its internal law, much less its national policies, as justification for its failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of the States that contracting parties to international treaties are prepared to undertake the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfil the object and purpose of the treaty. Moreover, the internal legislation as well as the national policies are also subject to changes which might further expand the unknown effects of the reservation.

In its present formulation the reservation is clearly incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore inadmissible under article 51, paragraph 2, of the [said Convention]. Therefore the Government of Finland objects to such reservation. The Government of Finland further notes that the reservation made by the Government of Malaysia is devoid of legal effect.

The Government of Finland recommends the Government of Malaysia to reconsider its reservation to the [said Convention]."

With regard to the reservations made by Qatar upon ratification:

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made with regard to Malaysia.]

26 November 1996

With regard to the reservations made by Singapore upon accession:

"The reservations made in paragraphs 2 and 3 by the Republic of Singapore, consisting of a general reference to national law without stating unequivocally the provisions the legal effect of which may be excluded or modified, do not clearly define to the other Parties of the Convention the extent to which the reserving State commits itself to the Convention and therefore create doubts about the commitment of the reserving State to fulfil its obligations under the said Convention. Reservations of such unspecified nature may contribute to undermining the basis of international human rights treaties.

The Government of Finland also recalls that these reservations of the Republic of Singapore are subject to the general principle of observance of treaties according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to perform its treaty obligations. It is in the common interest of States that Parties to international treaties are prepared to take the necessary legislative changes in order to fulfil the object and purpose of the treaty.

The Government of Finland considers that in their present formulation these reservations made by the Republic of Singapore are incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention and therefore, inadmissible under article 51, paragraph 2, of the said Convention. In view of the above, the Government of Finland objects to these reservations and notes that they are devoid of legal effect"

6 February 1998

With regard to the reservations made by Oman upon accession:

[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made with regard to Singapore.]

26 April 2016

With regard to the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia upon ratification:

“The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia concerning the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Government of Finland notes that a general reference to the General Principles of Islamic Sharia raises doubts as to the commitment of the Federal Republic of Somalia to fulfill its obligations under the Convention. Such reservations are also subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for a failure to perform its treaty obligations.

In [the] view of the Government of Finland, the reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. According to Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, such reservations shall not be permitted.

Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Federal Republic of Somalia. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Finland and the Federal Republic of Somalia. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without the Federal Republic of Somalia benefitting from its reservations.”