Albania
Declaration: The Government of the People's Republic of Albania declares that the definition of piracy as given in the Convention is not consistent with present international law and does not serve to ensure freedom of navigation on the high seas.
Belarus
Declaration: The Government of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic considers that the definition of piracy given in the Convention does not cover certain acts which under contemporary international law should be considered as acts of piracy and does not serve to ensure freedom of navigation on international sea routes.
Bulgaria
Reservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratifica tion: Article 9: The Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria considers that the principle of international law according to which a ship on the high seas is not subject to any jurisdiction except that of the flag State applies without restriction to all government ships.
Declaration made upon signature: The Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria considers that the definition of piracy given in the Convention does not cover certain acts which under contemporary international law should be considered as acts of piracy and does not serve to ensure freedom of navigation on international sea routes.
Declaration made upon ratification: The Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria considers that the definition of piracy given in the Convention does not cover certain acts which under contemporary international law should be considered as acts of piracy and does not serve to ensure freedom of navigation on international sea routes.
Czech Republic3
Hungary
Declaration: "The Government of the Hungarian People's Republic declares that the definition of piracy as given in the Convention is not consistent with present international law and does not serve the general interests of the freedom of navigation on the high seas."
Indonesia
Reservation: "The terms `territorial sea' and `internal waters' mentioned in the Convention, as far as the Republic of Indonesia is concerned, are interpreted in accordance with Article 1 of the Government Regulation in Lieu of an Act No. 4 of the Year 1960 (State Gazette 1960, No. 22) concerning Indonesian Waters, which, in accordance with Article 1 of the Act No. 1 of the Year 1961 (State Gazette 1961, No. 3) concerning the Enactment of All Emergency Acts and All Government Regulations in Lieu of an Act which were promulgated before January 1, 1961, has become Act, which Article word by word is as follows: Article 1: "1.The Indonesian Waters consist of the territorial sea and the internal waters of Indonesia. "2.The Indonesian territorial sea is a maritime belt of a width of twelve nautical miles, the outer limit of which is measured perpendicular to the baselines or points on the baselines which consist of straight lines connecting the outermost point on the low water mark of the outermost islands or part of such islands comprising Indonesian territory with the provision that in case of straits of a width of not more than twenty-four nautical miles and Indonesia is not the only coastal state the outer limit of the Indonesian territorial sea shall be drawn at the middle of the strait. "3.The Indonesian internal waters are all waters lying within the baselines mentioned in paragraph 2. "4.One nautical mile is sixty to one degree of latitude."
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Upon signature:
Reservations: Article 2: With respect to the words "no State may validly purport to subject any part of them to its sovereignty", it shall be understood that this prohibition does not apply to the continental shelf, which is governed by article 2 of the Convention on the Continental Shelf. Articles 2, 3 and 4: The Iranian Government maintains the objection on the ground of excess of competence, expressed by its delegation at the twelfth plenary meeting of the Conference on the Law of the Sea on 24 April 1958, to the articles recommended by the Fifth Committee of the Conference and incorporated in the afore-mentioned articles of the Convention on the High Seas. The Iranian Government accordingly reserves all rights regarding the contents of these articles in so far as they relate to countries having no sea coast. Article 2(3)–article 26, paragraphs 1 and 2: Application of the provisions of these articles relating to the laying of submarine cables and pipelines shall be subject to the authorization of the coastal State, in so far as the continental shelf is concerned.
Mexico
Mongolia8
Poland
Declaration: "The Government of the Polish People's Republic considers that the definition of piracy as contained in the Convention does not fully correspond with the present state of international law in this respect."
Romania
Declaration: The Government of the Romanian People's Republic considers that the definition of piracy as given in article 15 of the Convention on the High Seas does not cover certain acts which under contemporary international law should be considered as acts of piracy.
Russian Federation
Declaration: The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics considers that the definition of piracy given in the Convention does not cover certain acts which under contemporary international law should be considered as acts of piracy and does not serve to ensure freedom of navigation on international sea routes.
Slovakia3
Spain
Ukraine
Declaration: The Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic considers that the definition of piracy given in the Convention does not cover certain acts which under contemporary international law should be considered as acts of piracy and does not serve to ensure freedom of navigation on international sea routes.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Australia
1 February 1965
31 January 1968
29 September 1976
Denmark
31 October 1974
Fiji
Germany<superscript>5</superscript>
15 July 1974
2 March 1977
Israel
Japan
Madagascar
Netherlands (Kingdom of the)
17 March 1967
Portugal
27 December 1966
Thailand
Tonga
6 November 1959
5 April 1962
17 June 1965
2 November 1966
13 May 1975
10 January 1977
United States of America<superscript>9</superscript>
19 September 1962
19 August 1965
28 September 1966
11 July 1974
Signed on behalf of the Republic of China, on 29 April 1958. See note concerning signatures, ratifications, accessions, etc., on behalf of China (note 1 under “China” in the “Historical Information” secton in the front matter of this volume).
The former Yugoslavia had signed and ratified the Convention on 29 April 1958 and 28 January 1966, 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 in the front matter of this volume.
Czechoslovakia had signed and ratified on 30 October 1958 and 31 August 1961, respectively, with reservations. For the text of the res- ervations, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 450, p. 142. See also 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 “Germany” regarding Berlin (West) in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
The German Democratic Republic had acceded to the Convention on 27 December 1973 with a reservation and declarations. For the text of the reservation and declarations, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 905, p. 80. 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 in the front matter of this volume.
In respect of the Kingdom in Europe, Surinam and the Netherland Antilles. See also note 1 under “Netherlands Antilles” and “Suriname” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
In a communication received on 19 July 1990, the Government of Mongolia notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation made upon accession concerning article 9. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1025, p. 370.
On 27 October 1967, the Government of the United States of America transmitted to the Secretary-General the following communication with reference to its previous communications regarding ratifications and accessions to the Law of the Sea Conventions with reservations which were unacceptable to the United States of America:
"The Government of the United States of America has received an inquiry regarding the applicability of several of the Geneva Law of the Sea Conventions of 1958 between the United States and States which ratified or acceded to those Conventions with reservations which the United States found to be unacceptable. The Government of the United States wishes to state that it has considered and will continue to consider all the Geneva Law of the Sea Conventions of 1958 as being in force between it and all other States that have ratified or acceded thereto, including States that have ratified or acceded with reservations unacceptable to the United States. With respect to States which ratified or acceded with reservations unacceptable to the United States, the Conventions are considered by the United States to be in force between it and each of those States except that provisions to which such reservations are addressed shall apply only to the extent that they are not affected by those reservations. The United States considers that such application of the Convention does not in any manner constitute any concurrence by the United States in the substance of any of the reservations involved."