Albania20
Algeria
Argentina
Bahrain21,22
Reservation: "With reference to article IX of the Convention the Government of the State of Bahrain declares that, for the submission of any dispute in terms of this article to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the express consent of all the parties to the dispute is required in each case."
Bangladesh
Declaration: “Article IX: For the submission of any dispute in terms of this article to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the consent of all parties to the dispute will be required in each case.”
Belarus23
Bulgaria24
China
Declaration: 1. The ratification to the said Convention by the Taiwan local authorities on 19 July 1951 in the name of China is illegal and therefore null and void.
Reservation: 2. The People's Republic of China does not consider itself bound by article IX of the said Convention.
Czech Republic10
Finland25
Hungary26
India
Malaysia27
Reservation: "That with reference to article IX of the Convention, before any dispute to which Malaysia is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of Malaysia is required in each case."
Understanding: "That the pledge to grant extradition in accordance with a state's laws and treaties in force found in article VII extends only to acts which are criminal under the law of both the requesting and the requested state."
Mongolia28
Montenegro14
Confirmed upon succession:
Reservation: "The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia does not consider itself bound by Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and, therefore, before any dispute to which the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a party may be validly submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this Article, the specific and explicit consent of the FRY is required in each case.”
Morocco
Myanmar
Philippines
Poland29
Romania30
Russian Federation23
Rwanda31
Serbia16,32
Reservation: "The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia does not consider itself bound by Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and, therefore, before any dispute to which the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a party may be validly submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this Article, the specific and explicit consent of the FRY is required in each case."
Singapore27
Reservation: "That with reference to article IX of the Convention, before any dispute to which the Republic of Singapore is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the Republic of Singapore is required in each case."
Slovakia10
Spain33
Ukraine23
United Arab Emirates
Reservation: The Government of the State of the United Arab Emirates, having considered the aforementioned Convention and approved the contents thereof, formally declares its accession to the Convention and makes a reservation with respect to article 9 thereof concerning the submission of disputes arising between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of this Convention, to the International Court of Justice, at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.
United States of America11
Reservations: "(1) That with reference to article IX of the Convention, be fore any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case. (2) That nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."
Understandings: "(1) That the term `intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such' appearing in article II means the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such by the acts specified in article II. (2) That the term `mental harm' in article II (b) means permanent impairment of mental faculties through drugs, torture or similar techniques. (3) That the pledge to grant extradition in accordance with a state's laws and treaties in force found in article VII extends only to acts which are criminal under the laws of both the requesting and the requested state and nothing in article VI affects the right of any state to bring to trial before its own tribunals any of its nationals for acts committed outside a state. (4) That acts in the course of armed conflicts committed without the specific intent required by article II are not sufficient to constitute genocide as defined by this Convention. (5) That with regard to the reference to an international penal tribunal in article VI of the Convention, the United States declares that it reserves the right to effect its participation in any such tribunal only by a treaty entered into specifically for that purpose with the advice and consent of the Senate."
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
Viet Nam
Yemen19
Australia
15 November 1950
19 January 1951
Belgium
Brazil34,35
China34
Cuba8
Denmark
22 December 1989
With regard to reservation (2) made by the United States of America: "In the view of the Government of Denmark this reservation is subject to 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."
Ecuador
31 March 1950
21 August 1950
9 January 1951
Estonia
With regard to reservation (2) made by the United States of America: "The Estonian Government objects to this reservation on the grounds that it creates uncertainty, as to the extent of the obligations the Government of the United States of America is prepared to assume with regard to the Convention. According to article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, no party may invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for failure to perform a treaty."
Finland
With respect to reservation (2) made by the United States of America: "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."
Greece
26 January 1990
Ireland
Italy
29 December 1989
Mexico
4 June 1990
Netherlands (Kingdom of the)
27 December 1989
With regard to the reservations made by the United States of America: "As concerns the first reservation, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls its declaration, made on 20 June 1966 on the occasion of the accession of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the Convention [...] stating that in its opinion the reservations in respect of article IX of the Convention, made at that time by a number of states, were incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, and that the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands did not consider states making such reservations parties to the Convention. Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not consider the United States of America a party to the Convention. Similarly, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not consider parties to the Convention other states which have made such reservations, i.e., in addition to the states mentioned in the aforementioned declaration, the People's Republic of China, Democratic Yemen, the German Democratic Republic, the Mongolian People's Republic, the Philippines, Rwanda, Spain, Venezuela, and Viet Nam, on the other hand, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does consider parties to theConvention those states that have since withdrawn their reservations, i.e., the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. As the Convention may come into force between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United States of America as a result of the latter withdrawing its reservation in respect of article IX, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands deems it useful to express the following position on the second reservation of the United States of America: The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to this reservation on the ground that it creates uncertainty as to the extent of the obligations the Government of the United States of America is prepared to assume with regard to the Convention. Moreover, any failure by the United States of America to act upon the obligations contained in the Convention on the ground that such action would be prohibited by the constitution of the United States would be contrary to the generally accepted rule of international law, as laid down in article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties (Vienna, 23 May 1969)".
23 February 1996
With regard to the reservations made by Malaysia and Singapore made upon accession: "The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls its declaration made on 20 June 1966 on the occasion of the accession [to the said Convention]. [See declaration made under " Netherlands "] Accordingly, the Government of the Netherlands declares that it considers the reservations made by Malaysia and Singapore in respect of article IX of the Convention incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not consider Malaysia and Singapore Parties to the Convention. On the other hand, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does consider Parties to the Convention those States that have since withdrawn their reservations in respect of article IX of the Convention, i.e., Hungary, Bulgaria and Mongolia."
Norway
10 April 1952
With regard to reservation (2) made by the United States of America: "In the view of the Government of Norway 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."
Spain
With regard to reservation (2) made by the United States of America: Spain interprets the reservation entered by the United States of America to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948 [...] to mean that legislation or other action by the United States of America will continue to be in accordance with the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Sri Lanka
6 February 1951
Sweden
With regard to reservation (2) made by the United States of America: "The Government of Sweden is of the view that a State party to the Convention may not invoke the provisions of its national legislation, including the Constitution, to justify that it does not fulfil its obligations under the Convention and therefore objects to the reservation. This objection does not constitute an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and the United States of America."
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
21 November 1975
26 August 1983
With regard to statements made by Viet Nam concerning articles IX and XII and reservation made by China concerning article IX: "The Government of the United Kingdom have [...] consistently stated that they are unable to accept reservations to [article IX]. Likewise, in conformity with the attitude adopted by them in previous cases, the Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservation entered by Viet Nam relating to article XII."
30 December 1987
With regard to a reservation made by Democratic Yemen concerning article IX: "The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have consistently stated that they are unable to accept reservations in respect of article IX of the said Convention; in their view this is not the kind of reservation which intending parties to the Convention hve the right to make. Accordingly the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland do not accept the reservation entered by the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen against article IX of the Convention."
20 March 1996
With regard to reservations to article IX made by Malaysia and Singapore upon accession: "The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have consistently stated that they are unable to accept reservations to article IX. In their view, these are not the kind of reservations which intending parties to the Convention have the right to make. Accordingly, the Government of the United Kingdom do not accept the reservations entered by the Government of Singapore and Malaysia to article IX of the Convention."
Resolution 260 (III), Official Records of the General Assembly, Third Session , Part I (A/810), p. 174.
The former Yugoslavia had signed and ratified the Convention on 11 December 1948 and 29 August 1950, respectively. 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 (click on the tab "Status of Treaties" and then on "Historical Information").
On 3 October 1983, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Argentina the following objection:
[The Government of Argentina makes a] formal objection to the declaration of territorial extension issued by the United Kingdom with regard to the Malvinas Islands (and dependencies), which that country is illegally occupying and refers to as the "Falkland Islands". The Argentine Republic rejects and considers null and void the [said declaration] of territorial extension.
With reference to the above-mentioned objection the Secretary-General received, on 28 February 1985, from the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the following declaration:
"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have no doubt as to their right, by notification to the Depositary under the relevant provisions of the above-mentioned Convention, to extend the application of the Convention in question to the Falkland Islands or to the Falkland Islands Dependencies, as the case may be.
For this reason alone, the Government of the United Kingdom are unable to regard the Argentine [communication] under reference as having any legal effect."
The following communication, received by the Secretary-General on 15 June 1993, was transmitted prior to Yugoslavia’s admission to membership in the United Nations by General Assembly resolution A/55/12 on 1 November 2000, and its accession to the Convention, deposited with the Secretary-General on 12 March 2001:
"Considering the fact that the replacement of sovereignty on the part of the territory of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia previously comprising the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was carried out contrary to the rules of international law, the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia herewith states that it does not consider the so-called Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, but does consider that the so-called Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is bound by the obligation to respect the norms on preventing and punishing the crime of genocide in accordance with general international law irrespective of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
See also note 2 in this chapter and note 1 under “former Yugoslavia” in the “Historical Information” section (click on the tab "Status of Treaties" and then on "Historical Information").
On 6 and 10 June 1997, the Secretary-General received communications concerning the status of Hong Kong from the Governments of the United Kingdom and China (see also note 2 under “China” and note 2 under “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” regarding Hong Kong in the “Historical Information” section (click on the tab "Status of Treaties" and then on "Historical Information")). Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, China notified the Secretary-General that the Convention with the reservation made by China will also apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Ratified on behalf of the Republic of China on 19 July 1951. See note 1 under “China” in the “Historical Information” (click on the tab "Status of Treaties" and then on "Historical Information").
On 16 September 1999, the Government of Portugal informed the Secretary-General that the Convention would apply to Macao. Subsequently, the Secretary-General received communications regarding the status of Macao from Portugal and China (see note 3 under “China” and note 1 under “Portgual” in the “Historical Information” section (click on the tab "Status of Treaties" and then on "Historical Information")). Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Macao, China notified the Secretary-General that the Convention with the reservation made by China will also apply to the Macao Special Administrative Region.
By a notification received by the Secretary-General on 29 January 1982, the Government of Cuba withdrew the declaration made on its behalf upon ratification of the said Convention with respect to the reservations to articles IX and XII by Bulgaria, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
On 18 May 1998, the Government of Cyprus notified the Secretary-General of the following:
“The Government of the Republic of Cyprus has taken note of the reservations made by a number of countries when acceding to the [Convention] and wishes to state that in its view these are not the kind of reservations which intending parties to the Convention have the right to make.
Accordingly, the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not accept any reservations entered by any Government with regard to any of the Articles of the Convention.”
Czechoslovakia had signed and ratified the Convention on 28 December 1949 and 21 December 1950, respectively, with a reservation. Subsequently, by a notification received on 26 April 1991, the Government of Czechoslovakia notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation to article IX made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 78, p. 303. See also note 1 under “Czech Republic” and note 1 under “Slovakia” in the “Historical Information” section (click on the tab "Status of Treaties" and then on "Historical Information").
On 11 January 1990, the Secretary-General received from the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany the following declaration:
"The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has taken note of the declarations made under the heading "Reservations" by the Government of the United States of America upon ratification of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany interprets paragraph (2) of the said declarations as a reference to article V of the Convention and therefore as not in any way affecting the obligations of the United States of America as a State Party to the Convention.".
See note 1 under “Germany” regarding Berlin (West) in the “Historical Information” (click on the tab "Status of Treaties" and then on "Historical Information").
The German Democratic Republic had acceded to the Convention with reservation and declaration on 27 March 1973. For the text of the reservation and the declarations see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 861, p. 200. See also note 2 under “Germany” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
See note 1 under "Montenegro" in the "Historical Information" section (click on the tab "Status of Treaties" and then on "Historical Information").
See note 1 under "New Zealand" regarding Tokelau in the "Historical Information" section (click on the tab "Status of Treaties" and then on "Historical Information").
The Secretary-General received communications from the following States on the dates indicated hereinafter regarding the accession of Yugoslavia to the Convention:
Croatia (18 May 2001):
"The Government of the Republic of Croatia objects to the deposition of the instrument of accession of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, due to the fact that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is already bound by the Convention since its emergence as one of the five equal successor states to the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
This fact was confirmed by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in its Declaration of 27 April 1992, as communicated to the Secretary-General (UN doc. A/46/915). Notwithstanding the political reasoning behind it, in its 1992 Declaration the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia stated that it "shall strictly abide by all the commitments that the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia assumed internationally".
In this regard the Republic of Croatia notes in particular the decision of the International Court of Justice in its Judgement of 11 July 1996 that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia "was bound by provisions of the [Genocide] Convention on the date of the filing of [the Application by Bosnia and Herzegovina], namely on 20 March 1993" (ICJ Reports 1996, p. 595, at para. 17).
The Government of the Republic of Croatia further objects to the reservation made by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in respect of Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and considers it to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Republic of Croatia considers the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to be fully in force and applicable between the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including Article IX.
The Government of the Republi of Croatia deems that neither the purported way of becoming a party to the Genocide Convention ex nunc by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, nor its purported reservation, have any legal effect regarding the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with respect to the pending proceedings initiated before the International Court of Justice by the Republic of Croatia against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia pursuant to the Genocide Convention."
Bosnia-Herzegovina (27 December 2001):
On 21 March 2001 the Secretary-General of the United Nations confirmed to the Permanent Representative of Yugoslavia to the United Nations the receipt of a ‘Notification of Accession to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948). The note of the Secretary -General carries reference as: LA 41 TR/221/1(4-1).
The Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina objects to the deposition of this instrument of accession.
On 29 June 2001, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of Slovenia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia signed an "Agreement on Succession Issues" in which these States, among other things, declare that they are "in sovereign equality the five successor States to the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". A copy of the Agreement is enclosed. [Copy not reproduced herein.] For this reason, there can be no question of "accession", but rather there is an issue of succession. This, in itself, implies that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has effectively succeeded the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as of 27 April 1992 (the date of the proclamation of the FRY) as a Party to the Genocide Convention.
Apart from that, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia upon its proclamation on 27 April 1992 declared - and communicated this to the Secretary-General that it would "strictly abide by all the commitments that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia assumed internationally"(UN Doc. A/46/915).
For these two reasons it is not possible for the FRY to effectively lay down a reservation with regards to part of the Genocide Convention (i.e. Article IX of the Convention) several years after 27 April 1992, the day on which FRY became bound to the Genocide Convention in its entirety. Bosnia and Herzegovina refers to Articles 2 (1) (d) and 19 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which explicitly states that a reservation may only be formulated "when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty".
The Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina therefore deems the so-called "Notification of Accession to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948)" submitted by the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to be null and void. Moreover, the International Court of Justice declared in its Judgement of 11 July 1996, "Yugoslavia was bound by the provisions of the Convention" at least at the date of the filing of the Application in the case introduced by Bosnia and Herzegovina on 20 March 1993/ICJ Rep. 1996, p.610, para. 17). The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia continues to be bound under the same conditions, that is without any reservation."
The Secretary-General received on 9 November 1981 from the Government of the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea the following objection with regard to the accession by Viet Nam:
The Government of Democratic Kampuchea, as a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, considers that the signing of that Convention by the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam has no legal force, because it is no more than a cynical, macabre charade intended to camouflage the foul crimes of genocide committed by the 250,000 soldiers of the Vietnamese invasion army in Kampuchea. It is an odious insult to the memory of the more than 2,500,000 Kampucheans who have been massacred by these same Vietnamese armed forces using conventional weapons, chemical weapons and the weapon of famine, created deliberately by them for the purpose of eliminating all national resistance at its source.
It is also a gross insult to hundreds of thousands of Laotians who have been massacred or compelled to take refuge abroad since the occupation of Laos by the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, to the Hmong national minority in Laos, exterminated by Vietnamese conventional and chemical weapons and, finally, to over a million Vietnamese "boat people" who died at sea or sought refuge abroad in their flight to escape the repression carried out in Viet Nam by the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam.
This shameless accession by the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam violates and discredits the noble principles and ideals of the United Nations and jeopardizes the prestige and moral authority of our world Organization. It represents an arrogant challenge to the international community, which is well aware of these crimes of genocide committed by the Vietnamese army in Kampuchea, has constantly denounced and condemned them since 25 December 1978, the date on which the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea began, and demands that these Vietnamese crimes of genocideght to an end by the total withdrawal of the Vietnamese forces from Kampuchea and the restoration of the inalienable right of the people of Kampuchea to decide its own destiny without any foreign interference, as provided in United Nations resolutions 34/22, 35/6 and 36/5.
Accession on behalf of the Republic of Viet-Nam on 11 August 1950 (See C.N.134.1950 ). (For the text of objections to some of the reservations made upon the said accession, see publication, Multilateral Treaties for which the Secretary-General acts as Depositary (ST/LEG/SER.D/13, p. 91). See also note 1 under “Viet Nam” in the “Historical Information” section Accession on behalf of the Republic of Viet-Nam.
The Yemen Arab Republic had acceded to the Convention on 6 April 1989. See also note 1 under “Yemen” in the “Historical Information” section (click on the tab "Status of Treaties" and then on "Historical Information").
On 19 July 1999, the Government of Albania informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation regarding article IX made upon accession. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 210, p. 332.
On 25 June 1990, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Israel the following objection:
"The Government of the State of Israel has noted that the instrument of accession of Bahrain to the [said] Convention contains a declaration in respect of Israel.
In the view of the Government of the State of Israel, such declaration, which is explicitly of a political character, is incompatible with the purpose and objectives of this Convention and cannot in any way affect whatever obligations are binding upon Bahrain under general International Law or under particular Conventions.
The Government of the State of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards Bahrain an attitude of complete reciprocity".
On 8 July 2021, the Government of Bahrain notified the Secretary-General of its withdrawal of the following reservation made upon accession:
“[T]he 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 therewith.”
In communications received on 8 March, 19 and 20 April 1989, respectively, the Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic notified the Secretary-General that they had decided to withdraw the reservation relating to article IX. For the texts of the reservations, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 190, p. 381, vol.196, p. 345 and vol. 201, p. 368, respectively.
On 24 June 1992, the Government of Bulgaria notified the Secretary-General its decision to withdraw the reservation to article IX of the Convention, made upon accession. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 78, p. 318.
On 5 January 1998, the Government of Finland notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation made upon accession to the Convention. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 346, p. 324.
In a communication received on 8 December 1989, the Government of Hungary notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservation relating to article IX made upon accession. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 118, p. 306.
In this regard, on 14 October 1996, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Norway, the following communication:
"... In [the view of the Government of Norway], reservations in respect of article IX of the Convention are incompatible with the object and purpose of the said Convention. Accordingly, the Government of Norway does not accept the reservations entered by the Governments of Singapore and Malaysia to article IX of the Convention."
In a communication received on 19 July 1990, the Government of Mongolia notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation relating to article IX made upon accession. For the text of the reservation see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 587, p. 326.
On 16 October 1997, the Government of Poland notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation with regard to article IX of the Convention made upon accession. For the text of the reservation see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 78, p. 277.
On 2 April 1997, the Government of Romania informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation with regard to article IX of the Convention. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 78, p. 314.
In a communication received on 15 December 2008, the Government of Rwanda notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservation relating to article IX made upon accession to the Convention. The text of the reservation reads as follows:
The Rwandese Republic does not consider itself as bound by article IX of the Convention.
With regard to the reservation made by the Government of Yugoslavia upon accession, the Secretary-General received from the following State, a communication on the date indicated hereinafter:
Sweden (2 April 2002):
"The Government of Sweden has taken note of the Secretary-General’s circular notification 164.2001.TREATIES-.1 of 15 March 2001, stating the intent of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to accede, with a reservation, to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Government of Sweden regards the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as one successor state to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and, as such, a Party to the Convention from the date of the entering into force of the Convention for the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Government of Sweden hereby communicates that it considers the said reservation as having been made too late, according to article 19 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and thus null and void."
On 24 September 2009, the Government of Spain informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservation in respect of the whole article IX (Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice) made upon accession to the Convention.
For the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 28 May 1951, see I.C.J., Report 1951 , p. 15.
For the resolution adopted on 12 January 1952 by the sixth session of the General Assembly concerning reservations to multilateral conventions, see Resolution 598 (VI); Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixth Session, Supplement No. 20 (A/2119) , p. 84.