Home Page

Finland

Declaration:

       “Finland hereby declares its understanding that the Convention does not apply to military activities, including the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, and activities undertaken by military forces of a State in the exercise of their official functions; that the express mention of heads of State in article 3 of the Convention cannot be considered to affect the immunity ratione personae which other State officials might enjoy under international law; and that the Convention is without prejudice to any future international legal development concerning the protection of human rights.”

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Reservation:

       “Pursuant to Article 27, paragraph 3 of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 27, paragraph 2 of the Convention. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran affirms that the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary, in

       each individual case, for the submission of the dispute to the International Court of Justice. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran can, if it deems appropriate, for the settlement of such a dispute, agree with the submission of the dispute to arbitration in accordance with its related domestic law.”

Italy

Declaration:

       “… In depositing the present instrument of ratification, the Italian Republic wishes to underline that Italy understands that the Convention will be interpreted and applied in accordance with the principles of international law and, in particular, with the principles concerning the protection of human rights from serious violations. In addition, Italy states its understanding that the Convention does not apply to the activities of armed forces and their personnel, whether carried out during an armed conflict as defined by international humanitarian law, or undertaken in the exercise of their official duties.

       Similarly, the Convention does not apply where there are special immunity regimes, including the ones concerning the status of armed forces and associated personnel following the armed forces, as well as immunities ratione personae. Italy understands that the express reference, in Article 3,paragraph 2, of the Convention, to Heads of State cannot be interpreted so as to exclude or affect the immunity ratione personae of other State officials according to international law...”

Liechtenstein

“General interpretative declaration:

       In accordance with General Assembly resolution 59/38, adopted on 2 December 2004, the Principality of Liechtenstein hereby understands that the Convention does not cover criminal proceedings.

Interpretative declaration concerning article 12:

       The Principality of Liechtenstein considers that article 12 does not govern the question of pecuniary compensation for serious human rights violations which are alleged to be attributable to a State and are committed outside the State of the forum. Consequently, this Convention is without prejudice to developments in international law in this regard.”

Netherlands (Kingdom of the)

Declarations:

       “The Kingdom of the Netherlands interprets the Convention as not precluding the possibility of restricting State immunity in case of war crimes or crimes of aggression as recognized by the international community and in accordance with international law.

       Recalling, inter alia, resolution 59/38 adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 2 December 2004, in which the General Assembly took into account, when adopting the Convention, the statement of 25 October 2004 of the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property introducing the Committee’s report, the Kingdom of the Netherlands expresses its understanding that the Convention does not apply to military activities, including the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, and activities undertaken by military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties. Such activities remain subject to other rules of international law.”

Reservation:

       “The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts the provisions of article 18 of the Convention subject to the reservation that the conditions laid down in article 19, subparagraph (c) of the Convention regarding post-judgment measures of constraint also apply to pre-judgment measures of constraint against property of a State. Pre-judgment measures of constraint may be taken if it has been established that the property is specifically in use or intended for use by the State for other than government non-commercial purposes and is in the territory of the State of the forum, provided that pre-judgment measures of constraint may only be taken against property that has a connection with the entity against which the dispute was directed.”

Norway

Declaration:

       "Recalling inter alia resolution 59/38 adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 2 December 2004, in which the General Assembly took into account, when adopting the Convention, the statement of 25 October 2004 of the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property introducing the Committee's report, Norway hereby states its understanding that the Convention does not apply to military activities, including the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, and activities undertaken by military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties.  Such activities remain subject to other rules of international law.  Similarly, as also noted in the said statement, the Convention does not apply where there is a special immunity regime, including immunities ratione personae.  Thus, the express mention of heads of State in Article 3 should not be read as suggesting that the immunity ratione personae of other State officials is affected by the Convention.

       Furthermore, in cases where it has been established that property of a State is specifically in use or intended for use by the State for other than government non-commercial purposes and is in the territory of the State of the forum, it is the understanding of Norway that Article 18 does not prevent pre-judgement measures of constraint from being taken against property that has a connection with the entity against which the proceeding was directed.

       Finally, Norway understands that the Convention is without prejudice to any future international development in the protection of human rights."

Saudi Arabia

Reservation:

       … the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does accede to and accept the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, with the following reservation to article 27, paragraph 2, of the Convention regarding referral of disputes to the International Court of Justice:

       The Kingdom does not consider itself bound by the provision that disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention may be referred to the International Court of Justice. Disputes should not be referred to the International Court of Justice without the agreement of all parties involved.

Sweden

Declarations:

       “Recalling inter alia resolution 59/38, adopted by the General Assembly on 16 December 2004, taking into account inter alia the statement of the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee introducing the report of the Ad Hoc Committee to the General Assembly, as well as the report of the Ad Hoc Committee, Sweden hereby declares its understanding that the Convention does not apply to military

       activities, including the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, and activities undertaken by military forces of a State in the exercise of their official functions.

       Sweden also declares its understanding that the express mention of heads of State in article 3 should not be read as suggesting that the immunity ratione personae which other State officials might enjoy under international law is affected by the Convention.

       Sweden furthermore declares its understanding that the Convention is without prejudice to any future international legal development concerning the protection of human rights.”

Switzerland

General interpretative declaration:

       In accordance with General Assembly resolution 59/38, adopted on 2 December 2004, Switzerland hereby understands that the Convention does not cover criminal proceedings;

Interpretative declaration concerning article 12:

       Switzerland considers that article 12 does not govern the question of pecuniary compensation for serious human rights violations which are alleged to be attributable to a State and are committed outside the State of the forum. Consequently, this Convention is without prejudice to developments in international law in this regard;

Interpretative declaration concerning article 22, paragraph 3:

       If the State concerned is a Swiss canton, switzerland considers that "official language" should be understood as the official language or one of the official languages of the canton in which process is to be served.