CHAPTER XVIII

PENAL MATTERS5International Convention Against the Taking of HostagesNew York, 17 December 1979Entry into force3 June 1983, in accordance with article 18(2).Registration3 June 1983, No. 21931StatusSignatories39Parties176TextUnited Nations, <i>Treaty Series </i>, vol. 1316, p. 205; and depositary notifications C.N.209.1987.TREATIES-6 of 8 October 1987 and C.N.324.1987.TREATIES-9 of 1 February 1988 (procès-verbal of rectification of the original Russian text).The Convention was adopted by resolution <a href="/doc/source/docs/A_RES_34_146-E.pdf" target="_blank">34/146</a><superscript>1</superscript> of the General Assembly of the United Nations dated 17 December 1979. It was opened for signature from 18 December 1979 to 31 December 1980.

ParticipantSignatureAccession(a), Succession(d), RatificationAfghanistan24 Sep 2003 aAlbania22 Jan 2002 aAlgeria18 Dec 1996 aAndorra23 Sep 2004 aAntigua and Barbuda 6 Aug 1986 aArgentina18 Sep 1991 aArmenia16 Mar 2004 aAustralia21 May 1990 aAustria 3 Oct 1980 22 Aug 1986 Azerbaijan29 Feb 2000 aBahamas 4 Jun 1981 aBahrain16 Sep 2005 aBangladesh20 May 2005 aBarbados 9 Mar 1981 aBelarus 1 Jul 1987 aBelgium 3 Jan 1980 16 Apr 1999 Belize14 Nov 2001 aBenin31 Jul 2003 aBhutan31 Aug 1981 aBolivia (Plurinational State of)25 Mar 1980 7 Jan 2002 Bosnia and Herzegovina<superscript>2</superscript> 1 Sep 1993 dBotswana 8 Sep 2000 aBrazil 8 Mar 2000 aBrunei Darussalam18 Oct 1988 aBulgaria10 Mar 1988 aBurkina Faso 1 Oct 2003 aCabo Verde10 Sep 2002 aCambodia27 Jul 2006 aCameroon 9 Mar 1988 aCanada18 Feb 1980 4 Dec 1985 Central African Republic 9 Jul 2007 aChad 1 Nov 2006 aChile 3 Jan 1980 12 Nov 1981 China<superscript>3,4</superscript>26 Jan 1993 aColombia14 Apr 2005 aComoros25 Sep 2003 aCosta Rica24 Jan 2003 aCôte d'Ivoire22 Aug 1989 aCroatia<superscript>2</superscript>23 Sep 2003 dCuba15 Nov 2001 aCyprus13 Sep 1991 aCzech Republic<superscript>5</superscript>22 Feb 1993 dDemocratic People's Republic of Korea12 Nov 2001 aDemocratic Republic of the Congo 2 Jul 1980 Denmark11 Aug 1987 aDjibouti 1 Jun 2004 aDominica 9 Sep 1986 aDominican Republic12 Aug 1980 3 Oct 2007 Ecuador 2 May 1988 aEgypt18 Dec 1980 2 Oct 1981 El Salvador10 Jun 1980 12 Feb 1981 Equatorial Guinea 7 Feb 2003 aEstonia 8 Mar 2002 aEswatini 4 Apr 2003 aEthiopia16 Apr 2003 aFiji15 May 2008 aFinland29 Oct 1980 14 Apr 1983 France 9 Jun 2000 aGabon29 Feb 1980 19 Apr 2005 Georgia18 Feb 2004 aGermany<superscript>6,7</superscript>18 Dec 1979 15 Dec 1980 Ghana10 Nov 1987 aGreece18 Mar 1980 18 Jun 1987 Grenada10 Dec 1990 aGuatemala30 Apr 1980 11 Mar 1983 Guinea22 Dec 2004 aGuinea-Bissau 6 Aug 2008 aGuyana12 Sep 2007 aHaiti21 Apr 1980 17 May 1989 Honduras11 Jun 1980 1 Jun 1981 Hungary 2 Sep 1987 aIceland 6 Jul 1981 aIndia 7 Sep 1994 aIran (Islamic Republic of)20 Nov 2006 aIraq14 Oct 1980 26 Aug 2013 Ireland30 Jun 2005 aIsrael19 Nov 1980 Italy18 Apr 1980 20 Mar 1986 Jamaica27 Feb 1980 9 Aug 2005 Japan22 Dec 1980 8 Jun 1987 Jordan19 Feb 1986 aKazakhstan21 Feb 1996 aKenya 8 Dec 1981 aKiribati15 Sep 2005 aKuwait 6 Feb 1989 aKyrgyzstan 2 Oct 2003 aLao People's Democratic Republic22 Aug 2002 aLatvia14 Nov 2002 aLebanon 4 Dec 1997 aLesotho17 Apr 1980 5 Nov 1980 Liberia30 Jan 1980 5 Mar 2003 Libya25 Sep 2000 aLiechtenstein28 Nov 1994 aLithuania 2 Feb 2001 aLuxembourg18 Dec 1979 29 Apr 1991 Madagascar24 Sep 2003 aMalawi17 Mar 1986 aMalaysia29 May 2007 aMali 8 Feb 1990 aMalta11 Nov 2001 aMarshall Islands27 Jan 2003 aMauritania13 Mar 1998 aMauritius18 Jun 1980 17 Oct 1980 Mexico28 Apr 1987 aMicronesia (Federated States of) 6 Jul 2004 aMonaco16 Oct 2001 aMongolia 9 Jun 1992 aMontenegro<superscript>8</superscript>23 Oct 2006 dMorocco 9 May 2007 aMozambique14 Jan 2003 aMyanmar 4 Jun 2004 aNamibia 2 Sep 2016 aNauru 2 Aug 2005 aNepal 9 Mar 1990 aNetherlands (Kingdom of the)<superscript>9</superscript>18 Dec 1980 6 Dec 1988 New Zealand<superscript>10</superscript>24 Dec 1980 12 Nov 1985 Nicaragua24 Sep 2003 aNiger26 Oct 2004 aNigeria24 Sep 2013 aNiue22 Jun 2009 aNorth Macedonia<superscript>2</superscript>12 Mar 1998 dNorway18 Dec 1980 2 Jul 1981 Oman22 Jul 1988 aPakistan 8 Sep 2000 aPalau14 Nov 2001 aPanama24 Jan 1980 19 Aug 1982 Papua New Guinea30 Sep 2003 aParaguay22 Sep 2004 aPeru 6 Jul 2001 aPhilippines 2 May 1980 14 Oct 1980 Poland25 May 2000 aPortugal<superscript>4</superscript>16 Jun 1980 6 Jul 1984 Qatar11 Sep 2012 aRepublic of Korea 4 May 1983 aRepublic of Moldova10 Oct 2002 aRomania17 May 1990 aRussian Federation11 Jun 1987 aRwanda13 May 2002 aSan Marino16 Dec 2014 aSao Tome and Principe23 Aug 2006 aSaudi Arabia 8 Jan 1991 aSenegal 2 Jun 1980 10 Mar 1987 Serbia<superscript>2</superscript>12 Mar 2001 dSeychelles12 Nov 2003 aSierra Leone26 Sep 2003 aSingapore22 Oct 2010 aSlovakia<superscript>5</superscript>28 May 1993 dSlovenia<superscript>2</superscript> 6 Jul 1992 dSouth Africa23 Sep 2003 aSpain26 Mar 1984 aSri Lanka 8 Sep 2000 aSt. Kitts and Nevis17 Jan 1991 aSt. Lucia17 Oct 2012 aSt. Vincent and the Grenadines12 Sep 2000 aSudan19 Jun 1990 aSuriname30 Jul 1980 5 Nov 1981 Sweden25 Feb 1980 15 Jan 1981 Switzerland18 Jul 1980 5 Mar 1985 Tajikistan 6 May 2002 aThailand 2 Oct 2007 aTogo 8 Jul 1980 25 Jul 1986 Tonga 9 Dec 2002 aTrinidad and Tobago 1 Apr 1981 aTunisia18 Jun 1997 aTürkiye15 Aug 1989 aTurkmenistan25 Jun 1999 aUganda10 Nov 1980 5 Nov 2003 Ukraine<superscript>11</superscript>19 Jun 1987 aUnited Arab Emirates24 Sep 2003 aUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland<superscript>3,12</superscript>18 Dec 1979 22 Dec 1982 United Republic of Tanzania22 Jan 2003 aUnited States of America21 Dec 1979 7 Dec 1984 Uruguay 4 Mar 2003 aUzbekistan19 Jan 1998 aVenezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)13 Dec 1988 aViet Nam 9 Jan 2014 aYemen14 Jul 2000 aZambia17 Oct 2016 aAlgeriaReservation:The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 16, paragraph 1, of the [said Convention].These provisions are not in accordance with the view of the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria that the submission of a dispute to the International Court of Justice requires the prior agreement of all the parties concerned in each case.BelarusThe Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic does not consider itself bound by article 16, paragraph 1, of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and declares that, in order for any dispute between parties to the Convention concerning the interpretation or application thereof to be referred to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, the consent of all parties to the dispute must be secured in each individual case.The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic condemns international terrorism, which takes the lives of innocent people, constitutes a threat to their freedom and personal inviolability and destabilizes the international situation, whatever the motives used to explain terrorist actions. Accordingly, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic considers that article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention should be applied in a manner consistent with the stated aims of the Convention, which include the development of international co-operation in adopting effective measures for the prevention, prosecution and punishment of all acts of hostage-taking as manifestations of international terrorism through, inter alia, the extradition of alleged offenders.BrazilReservation:With the reservation provided under article 16 (2).Bulgaria<superscript>13</superscript>Declaration on article 9, paragraph 1:The People's Republic of Bulgaria condemns all acts of international terrorism, whose victims are not only governmental and public officials but also many innocent people, including mothers, children, old-aged, and which exerts an increasingly destabilizing impact on international relations, complicates considerably the political solution of crisis situations, irrespective of the reasons invoked to explain terrorist acts. The People's Republic of Bulgaria considers that article 9, paragraph 1 of the Convention should be applied in a manner consistent with the stated aims of the Convention, which include the development of international co-operation in adopting effective measures for the prevention, prosecution and punishment of all acts of hostage-taking as manifestations of international terrorism, including extradition of alleged offenders.ChileThe Government of the Republic [of Chile], having approved this Convention, states that such approval is given on the understanding that the aforesaid Convention prohibits the taking of hostages in any circumstances, even those referred to in article 12.ChinaReservation:The People's Republic of China makes its reservation to article 16, paragraph 1, and does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention.ColombiaReservation:In accordance with article 16 (2) of the Convention, Colombia does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 16 (1).CubaReservation:The Republic of Cuba declares, pursuant to article 16, paragraph 2, that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of the said article, concerning the settlement of disputes arising between States Parties, inasmuch as it considers that such disputes must be settled through amicable negotiation. In consequence, it reiterates that it does not recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.Czech Republic<superscript>3</superscript>Democratic People's Republic of KoreaReservations:... with the following reservations:1. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention.2. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 5, paragraph 3 of the Convention.DominicaUnderstanding:"The aforesaid Convention prohibits the taking of hostages in any circumstances, even those referred to in article 12."El SalvadorUpon signature:With the reservation permitted under article 16 (2) of the said Convention.Upon ratification:Reservation with respect to the application of the provisions of article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention.EthiopiaReservation pursuant to article 16 (2):"The Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia does not consider itself bound by the aforementioned provision of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, and states that disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention would be submitted to arbitration or to the Court only with the prior consent of all the parties concerned."FranceDeclarations:1. France considers that the act of hostage-taking is prohibited in all circumstances.2. With regard to the application of article 6, France, in accordance with the principles of its penal procedure, does not intend to take an alleged offender into custody or to take any other coercive measures prior to the institution of criminal proceedings, except in cases where pre-trial detention has been requested.3. With regard to the application of article 9, extradition will not be granted if the person whose extradition is requested was a French national at the time of the events or, in the case of a foreign national, if the offence is punishable by the death penalty under the laws of the requesting State, unless that State gives what are deemed to be adequate assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if a death sentence is passed, that it will not be carried out.Hungary<superscript>14</superscript>IndiaReservation:"The Government of the Republic of India declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 16 which establishes compulsory arbitration or adjudication by the International Court of Justice concerning disputes between two or more States Parties relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention at the request of one of them."Iran (Islamic Republic of)<superscript>15</superscript>Reservation:"Pursuant to Article 16, paragraph 2 of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention regarding the reference of any dispute concerning the interpretation, or application of this Convention, which is not settled by negotiation to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice."Interpretative declaration:"The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran declares its categorical condemnation of each and every act of terrorism, including taking innocent civilians as hostages, which violates human rights and fundamental freedom of human kind, undermines the stability and security of human communities, and hinders countries from development and progress. The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that elimination of terrorism requires a comprehensive campaign by the international community to identify and eradicate political, economic, social and international root causes of the scourge.The Islamic Republic of Iran further believes that fighting terrorism should not affect the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in a variety of international documents, including the Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and Article 1 paragraph 4 of the Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts."IsraelUpon signature:"1. It is the understanding of Israel that the Convention implements the principle that hostage taking is prohibited in all circumstances and that any person committing such an act shall be either prosecuted or extradited pursuant to article 8 of this Convention or the relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 or their additional Protocols, without any exception whatsoever."2) The Government of Israel declares that it reserves the right, when depositing the instrument of ratification, to make reservations and additional declarations and understandings."ItalyUpon signature:The Italian Government declares that, because of the differing interpretations to which certain formulations in the text lend themselves, Italy reserves the right, when depositing the instrument of ratification, to invoke article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969 in conformity with the general principles of international law.Jordan"The Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan declares that their accession to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages can in no way be construed as constituting recognition of, or entering into treaty relations with the ‘state of Israel’.Kenya"The Government of the Republic of Kenya does not consider herself bound by the provisions of paragraph (1) of the article 16 of the Convention."Kuwait<superscript>16</superscript>Declaration:It is understood that the accession to this Convention does not mean in any way a recognition of Israel by the Government of the State of Kuwait.Furthermore, no treaty relations will arise between the State of Kuwait and Israel.Lao People's Democratic RepublicReservation:"In accordance with paragraph 2, Article 16 of the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, the Lao People's Democratic Republic does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1, article 16 of the present Convention. The Lao People's Democratic Republic declares that to refer a dispute relating to interpretation and application of the present Convention to arbitration or International Court of Justice, the agreement of all parties concerned in the dispute is necessary."LebanonDeclaration:1. The accession of the Lebanese Republic to the Convention shall not constitute recognition of Israel, just as the application of the Convention shall not give rise to relations or cooperation of any kind with it.2. The provisions of the Convention, and in particular those of its article 13, shall not affect the Lebanese Republic's stance of supporting the right of States and peoples to oppose and resist foreign occupation of their territories.LiechtensteinInterpretative declaration:The Principality of Liechtenstein construes article 4 of the Convention to mean that the Principality of Liechtenstein undertakes to fulfil the obligations contained therein under the conditions laid down in its domestic legislation.Malawi"While the Government of the Republic of Malawi accepts the principles in article 16, this acceptance would nonetheless be read in conjunction with [the] declaration [made by the President and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Malawi] of 12 December, 1966 upon recognition as compulsory, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under article 36, paragraph 2, of the State of the Court."MalaysiaDeclarations and reservation:"1. The Government of Malaysia understands the phrase ‘preliminary inquiry into the facts' in Article 6 (1) of the Convention to mean a reference to the criminal investigation by the relevant law enforcement authority before a decision is made whether to institute a prosecution against the alleged offender for the offences under the Convention. 2. The Government of Malaysia understands Article 8 (1) of the Convention to include the right of the competent authorities to decide not to submit any particular case for prosecution before the judicial authorities if the alleged offender is dealt with under national security and preventive detention laws. 3. (a) Pursuant to Article 16 (2) of the Convention, the Government of Malaysia declares that it does not consider itself bound by article 16 (1) of the Convention; and (b) The Government of Malaysia reserves the right specifically to agree in a particular case to follow the arbitration procedure set forth in Article 16 (1) of the Convention or any other procedure for arbitration."MexicoIn relation to article 16, the United Mexican States adhere to the scope and limitations established by the Government of Mexico on 7 November 1945, at the time when it ratified the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the International Court of Justice.<right>6 August 1987</right>The Government of Mexico subsequently specified that the said declaration should be understood to mean that, in so far as article 16 is concerned, the United Mexican States accede subject to the limits and restrictions laid down by the Mexican Government when recognizing, on 23 October 1947, the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in accordance with article 36, paragraph 2, of the State of the Court.Montenegro<superscript>8</superscript>Confirmed upon succession:Declaration:"The [Government of Yugoslavia] herewith states that the provisions of Article 9 of the Convention should be interpreted and applied in practice in the way which would not bring into question the goals of the Convention, i.e. undertaking of efficient measures for the prevention of all acts of the taking of hostages as a phenomenon of international terrorism, as well as the prosecution, punishment and extradition of persons considered to have perpetrated this criminal offence."MozambiqueDeclaration:“... with the following declaration in accordance with its article 16, paragraph 2:"The Republic of Mozambique does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 16 paragraph 1 of the Convention.In this connection, the Republic of Mozambique states that, in each individual case, the consent of all Parties to such a dispute is necessary for the submission of the dispute to arbitration or to [the] International Court of Justice.”Furthermore, the Republic of Mozambique declares that:“The Republic of Mozambique, in accordance with its Constitution and domestic laws, can not extradite Mozambique citizens.Therefore, Mozambique citizens will be tried and sentenced in national courts."MyanmarReservation:“The Government of the Union of Myanmar does not consider itself bound by the article 16 (1) of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages adopted on 17 December 1979.”Netherlands (Kingdom of the)Reservation:"In cases where the judicial authorities of either the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba cannot exercise jurisdiction pursuant to one of the principles mentioned in article 5, paragraph 1, the Kingdom accepts the aforesaid obligation [laid down in article 8] subject to the condition that it has received and rejected a request for extradition from another State party to the Convention."Declaration:"In the view of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands article 15 of the Convention, and in particular the second sentence of that article, in no way affects the applicability of article 33 of the Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees."QatarReservation:… the State of Qatar accede[s] to the Convention Against the Taking of Hostages of 1979, with reservation [to] paragraph 1 of article 16 of the Convention.Republic of MoldovaReservation:Pursuant to article 16, paragraph 2 of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, the Republic of Moldova declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention.Russian Federation<superscript>17</superscript>Saudi Arabia<superscript>16</superscript>Reservation:1. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not consider itself obligated with the provision of paragraph 1, of article 16, of the Convention concerning arbitration.Declaration:2. The accession of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to this Convention does not constitute a recognition of Israel and does not lead to entering into any transactions or the establishment of any relations based on this Convention.Serbia<superscript>2</superscript>Confirmed upon succession:Declaration:"The [Government of Yugoslavia] herewith states that the provisions of Article 9 of the Convention should be interpreted and applied in practice in the way which would not bring into question the goals of the Convention, i.e. undertaking of efficient measures for the prevention of all acts of the taking of hostages as a phenomenon of international terrorism, as well as the prosecution, punishment and extradition of persons considered to have perpetrated this criminal offence."SingaporeReservation and declaration:“Pursuant to Article 16, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Republic of Singapore declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention.The Republic of Singapore understands Article 8(1) of the Convention to include the right of competent authorities to decide not to submit any particular case for prosecution before the judicial authorities if the alleged offender is dealt with under national security and preventive detention laws.”Slovakia<superscript>3</superscript>St. LuciaReservations:“1. In accordance with Article 16 of paragraph 2 of the Convention, the Government of Saint Lucia does not consider itself bound by the arbitration procedures established under Article 16 paragraph 1, of the Convention.2. That the explicit expressed consent of the Government of Saint Lucia would be necessary for any submission of any dispute to arbitration [or] to the International Court of Justice.”SwitzerlandDeclaration:The Swiss Federal Council interprets article 4 of the Con-vention to mean that Switzerland undertakes to fulfil the obligations contained therein in the conditions specified by its domestic legislation.ThailandReservation:"The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand does not consider itself bound by Article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention."TunisiaReservation:[The Government of the Republic of Tunisia] declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 16 and states that disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention can only be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice with the prior consent of all the Parties concerned.TürkiyeReservation:In acceding to the Convention the Government of the Republic of Turkey, under article 16 (2) of the Convention declares that it doesn't consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph (1) of the said article.Ukraine[ <i>Same reservation and declaration identical in substance, </i> mutatis mutandis, <i>as those made by Belarus. </i>]Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)Declaration:The Republic of Venezuela declares that it is not bound by the provisions of article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention.Viet NamReservation:“[T]he Socialist Republic of Viet Nam does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 16 of this Convention.”Declaration:“1. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam declares that the provisions of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages are non-self-executing in Viet Nam. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam shall duly implement the provisions of the Convention through multilateral and bilateral mechanisms, specific provisions in its domestic laws and regulations and on the basis of the principle of reciprocity.2. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, pursuant to Article 10 of this Convention, declares that it shaII not take this Convention as the direct legal basis for extradition. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam shalI carry out extradition in accordance with the provisions of its domestic laws and regulations, on the basis of treaties on extradition and the principle of reciprocity.”France<right>9 January 2015</right>With regard to the declaration made by Viet Nam upon accessionThe Government of the French Republic has examined the declaration formulated by Viet Nam upon accession to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages.In this declaration, Viet Nam states, inter alia, that “the provisions of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages are non-self-executing in Viet Nam,” and that “the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam shall duly implement the provisions of the Convention through multilateral and bilateral mechanisms, specific provisions in its domestic laws and regulations and on the basis of the principle of reciprocity”.The French Government notes that the declaration formulated by Viet Nam has the legal effect of restricting the scope of certain stipulations of the Convention and must therefore be considered as a reservation.The French Government notes that Viet Nam intends, by means of this declaration, to prevent the direct application of the provisions of the Convention. As a contracting party to the Convention, Viet Nam is required to take the necessary measures to incorporate the obligations contained in the Convention into its domestic legal order. In this connection, the reservation formulated by Viet Nam is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.The French Government also notes that Viet Nam intends, by means of this declaration, to make the application of the provisions of the Convention subordinate to the principle of reciprocity. However, the object and purpose of the Convention is to develop international cooperation between States so as to ensure that any person who commits the act of hostage-taking is prosecuted or extradited, even if the State of which the hostage-taker is a national does not apply the provisions of the Convention or is not a party thereto. In this regard, the French Government considers that the Government of Viet Nam has formulated a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, which is to ensure that any person who commits an act of hostage-taking is prosecuted or extradited.The Government of the French Republic therefore objects to the declaration formulated by Viet Nam. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between France and Viet Nam.Israel<right>9 Septemer 1998</right>With regard to declarations made by Lebanon upon accession:“... The Government of Israel refers in particular to the political declaration “[ <i>see declaration “1” made under “Lebanon” </i>] made by the Lebanese Republic on acceding to the [said] Convention.“In the view of the Government of Israel, this Convention is not the proper place for making declarations of a political character. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter adopt towards the Lebanese Republic an attitude of complete reciprocity.“Moreover, in view of the Government of Israel, the Lebanese understanding of certain of the Convention’s provisions [ <i>see declaration “2” made under “Lebanon” </i>] is incompatible with and contradictory to the object and purpose of the Convention and in effect defeats that object and purpose.”Italy<right>27 March 2007</right>With regard to the interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran upon accession:"The interpretative declaration made by Iran would limit the scope of application of the Convention to exclude acts that otherwise constitute the offence of "taking of hostages" under article 2, if they meet the test of "legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation in the exercise of their right of self-determination". The interpretative declaration does not limit the obligations of Iran under the Convention with regard to article 1.Italy wishes to make clear that it opposes any and all interpretations of the Convention that would limit its scope of application, and does not consider the declaration made by Iran to have any effect on the Convention. Italy thus regards the Convention as entering into force between Italy and Iran without the interpretative declaration made by Iran."PortugalWith regard to the declaration made by Singapore upon accesstion:“The Government of the Portuguese Republic considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Singapore, to Article 8 (1) is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is therefore contrary to its object and purpose.The reservation furthermore is not compatible with the terms of Article 6 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to ‘in accordance with its laws take other measures to ensure his presence for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.’The Government of the Portuguese Republic recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.The Government of the Portuguese Republic therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Singapore to Article 8 (1) of the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, New York, 17 December 1979.However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Singapore.”SpainWith regard to the declaration made by Singapore upon accession:The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the unilateral declaration with respect to article 8, paragraph 1, made by Singapore upon acceding to the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages of 17 December 1979. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that the said declaration constitutes a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the 1979 Convention, insofar as it is difficult to determine precisely the extent to which Singapore accepts the obligations set out in article 8, paragraph 1. The said reservation affects fundamental obligations resulting from the Convention, the performance of which is necessary for the realization of the object of the Convention.The Government of the Kingdom of Spain therefore objects to the reservation formulated by Singapore to article 8, paragraph 1, of the 1979 Convention. This objection shall not prevent the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and Singapore.Saudi Arabia<right>11 December 2001</right>[For the text of the communication see depositary notification C.N.1500.2001.TREATIES- of 8 January 2002]1<i> Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fourth Session, Supplement No. 46 </i> (A/34/46), p. 245.2The former Yugoslavia had signed and ratified the Convention on 29 December 1980 and 19 April 1985, respectively, with the following reservation (made upon signature) and declaration (made upon ratification):"With the reservation with regard to article 9, subject to subsequent approval pursuant to the constitutional provisions in force in Solicalist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia".<i>Declaration: </i>"The Government of the Yugoslavia herewith states that the provisions of Article 9 of the Convention should be interpreted and applied in practice in the way which would not bring into question the goals of the Convention, i.e. undertaking of efficient measures for the prevention of all acts of the taking of hostages as a phenomenon of international terrorism, as well as the prosecution, punishment and extradition of persons considered to have perpetrated this criminal offence."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.3The Secretary-General received, on 6 and 10 June 1999, communications concerning the status of Hong Kong from China and the United Kingdom (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 in the front matter of this volume). Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, China notified the Secretary-General that the Convention with reservation will also apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.4On 28 June 1999, the Government of Portugal informed the Secretary-General that the Convention would also apply to Macao. Subsequently, the Secretary-General received, on 27 October and 3 December 1999, communications concerning the status of Macao from Portgual and China (see also note 3 under “China” and note 1 under “Portugal” regarding Macao in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume). Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Macao, China notified the Secretary-General that the Convention will also apply to the Macao Special Administrative Region.5Czechoslovakia had acceded to the Convention on 27 January 1988, with the following reservation to article 16 (1):The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic does not consider itself bound by the provision of its article 16, paragraph 1, and states that, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality of States, for any dispute to be submitted to a conciliation procedure or to the International Court of Justice the consent of all the parties to the dispute is required in each separate case.Subsequently, on 26 April 1991, the Government of Czechoslovakia notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the said reservation.See also note 1 under “Czech Republic” and note 1 under “Slovakia” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.6The German Democratic Republic had acceded to the Convention on 2 May 1988 with the following reservation and declaration: <i>Reservation regarding article 16, paragraph 1 </i>: The German Democratic Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 16, paragraph 1, of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and declares that in every single case the consent of all parties in the dispute is necessary to submit to arbitration or refer to the International Court of Justice any dispute between the States Parties to the Convention concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention. <i>Declaration regarding article 9, paragraph 1 </i>: The German Democratic Republic decisively condemns any act of international terrorism. Therefore, the German Democratic Republic holds the opinion that article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention shall be applied in such a way as to be in correspondence with the declared aims of the Convention which embrace the taking of effective measures for the prevention, prosecution and punishment of all acts of international terrorism, including the taking of hostages. See also note 2 under “Germany” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.7See note 1 under “Germany” regarding Berlin (West) in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.8See note 1 under "Montenegro" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.9For the Kingdom in Europe, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.10For New Zealand (except Tokelau), Cook Islands and Niue.11On 20 October 2015, the Government of Ukraine made a communication. The text can be found here: C.N.613.2015.TREATIES-XVIII.5 of 20 October 2015.12In respect of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Territories under the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom.13On 24 June 1992, the Government of Bulgaria notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation to article 16 (1) of the Convention, made upon accession which reads as follows: The People's Republic of Bulgaria does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 16, paragraph 1 of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and declares that submission of any dispute concerning interpretation and application of the Convention between parties to the Convention to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice requires the consent of all parties to the dispute in each individual case.14In a communication received on 8 December 1989, the Government of Hungary notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation with respect to article 16 made upon accession which reads as follows:The Hungarian People's Republic does not consider itself bound by the dispute settlement procedures provided for in article 16, paragraph ,1 of the Convention, since in its opinion, the jurisdiction of any arbitral tribunal or of the International Court of Justice can be founded only on the voluntary prior acceptance of such jurisdiction by all the Parties concerned.15The Secretary-General received communications from the following States with regard to the Interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran upon accession on the dates indicated hereinafter: France (16 November 2007): France has examined the reservation and the two interpretative declarations made by the Islamic Republic of Iran upon its accession on 20 November 2006 to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, done at New York on 17 September 1979. France considers that the declaration in which the Islamic Republic of Iran states its belief that “fighting terrorism should not affect the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation in the exercise of their right of self-determination” has no effect on the provisions of the Convention. Notwithstanding, France wishes to recall that it considers that the act of hostage-taking is prohibited in all circumstances. United States of America (16 November 2007): “The Interpretative Declaration sets forth Iran’s belief that ‘fighting terrorism should not affect the legitimate struggle of people under colonial domination and foreign occupation in the exercise of their right of self-determination … ‘ The United States views this generalized statement as having no effect on the Convention or on application of the Convention between the United States and Iran. Nothing in the Convention provides for or permits any justification, whether political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious, or otherwise for the commission of acts that States parties to the Convention are required to criminalize.” Portugal (19 November 2007): “… The Government of the Portuguese Republic has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. Portugal considers that this interpretative declaration cannot limit the scope of the application of the Convention; otherwise it would be a reservation contrary to its object and purpose, if purporting to exclude from the acts prohibited by the Convention acts committed in the struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation. Therefore, Portugal does not consider the declaration made by Iran to have any legal effect on the Convention.” Canada (20 November 2007): “The Government of Canada has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon acceding to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. The Government of Canada notes that the interpretative declaration has potential to limit the scope of application of the Convention to exclude acts that otherwise constitute the offence of ‘taking of hostages’ under article 2, if they meet the test of ‘legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation in the exercise of their right of self-determination’. The Government of Canada notes that this interpretative declaration does not limit the obligations of the Islamic Republic of Iran under the Convention with regard to article 1. The Government of Canada opposes any and all interpretations of the Convention that would limit its scope of application and does not consider the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran to have any effect on the Convention.” Germany (21 November 2007): “The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. Germany considers that this interpretative declaration cannot limit the scope of the application of the Convention; otherwise it would be a reservation contrary to its object and purpose, if purporting to exclude from the acts prohibited by the Convention acts committed in the struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation. Therefore, the Federal Republic of Germany does not consider the declaration made by Iran to have any legal effect on the Convention.” Japan (27 November 2007): “The Government of Japan has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran at the time of its accession to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Convention’) which reads as follows: ‘The Islamic Republic of Iran further believes that fighting terrorism should not affect the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in a variety of international documents, including the Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and Article 1 paragraph 4 of the Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts.’ The Government of Japan does not consider that the aforementioned interpretative declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the Convention in their application to the Islamic Republicof Iran. The Government of Japan thus regards the interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran as having no effect on the application of the Convention between the two countries. The Government of Japan wishes to take this opportunity to declare its unequivocal condemnation of all acts of terrorism, including taking of hostages, as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motives, and to emphasize the importance to ensure that any person committing an act of terrorism does not escape prosecution and punishment.” United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (27 November 2007): “The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [has] examined the declaration relating to the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran at the time of its accession to the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom understand [s] that the declaration made by Iran does not purport to exclude or modify the terms of the Convention. The United Kingdom Government condemns in the strongest terms all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation whenever and by whomsoever committed and for whatever purposes.” Netherlands (10 December 2007): “The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that this interpretative declaration cannot limit the scope of the Convention; otherwise it would be a reservation contrary to its object and purpose, if purporting to exclude from the acts prohibited by the Convention acts committed in the struggle of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation. Therefore, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not consider the declaration made by Iran to have any legal effect on the Convention.” Spain (6 February 2008): The Government of the Kingdom of Spain has examined the interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran in respect of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that this interpretative declaration cannot limit the scope of the Convention, since, under the Convention itself, acts of hostage-taking, as manifestations of international terrorism, can never be justified, regardless of their cause. If the objective of the declaration is to exclude acts committed in the struggle of peoples against colonial domination or foreign occupation from the category of acts prohibited by the Convention, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain is of the view that the declaration would be a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Accordingly, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain believes that the declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran has no legal effect on the Convention. Austria (7 February 2008): “The Government of Austria has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. The Government of Austria considers the interpretative declaration made by Iran a mere political statement that has no legal effect.”16On 17 May 1989, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Israel the following communication:"The Government of the State of Israel has noted that the instrument of accession by the Government of Kuwait to the above-mentioned Convention contains a declaration in respect to 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 purposes and objectives of this Convention and cannot in any way affect whatever obligations are binding upon the Government of Kuwait under general international law or under particular Conventions.“The Government of the State of Israel, will insofar as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Kuwait an attitude of complete reciprocity.”On 22 May 1991, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Israel a communication, identical in essence, <i>mutatis mutandis </i>, with regard to the declaration made by Saudi Arabia upon accession.17In a communication received on 1 May 2007, the Government of the Russian Federation informed the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the following reservation made by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics upon accession to the Convention:... does not consider itself bound by article 16, paragraph 1, of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and declares that, in order for any dispute between parties to the Convention concerning the interpretation or application thereof to be referred to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, the consent of all parties to the dispute must be secured in each individual case.