CHAPTER XXVII
ENVIRONMENT2Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone LayerVienna, 22 March 198522 September 1988, in accordance with article 17(1).22 September 1988, No. 26164Signatories28Parties1981United Nations, <i>Treaty Series </i>, vol. 1513, p. 293.The Convention was adopted by the Conference on the Protection of the Ozone Layer and open for signature at Vienna from 22 March 1985 to 21 September 1985, and at the United Nations Headquarters in New York from 22 September 1985 until 21 March 1986.
ParticipantSignatureApproval(AA), Acceptance(A), Accession(a), Succession(d), RatificationAfghanistan17 Jun 2004 aAlbania 8 Oct 1999 aAlgeria20 Oct 1992 aAndorra26 Jan 2009 aAngola17 May 2000 aAntigua and Barbuda 3 Dec 1992 aArgentina22 Mar 1985 18 Jan 1990 Armenia 1 Oct 1999 aAustralia16 Sep 1987 aAustria16 Sep 1985 19 Aug 1987 Azerbaijan12 Jun 1996 aBahamas 1 Apr 1993 aBahrain27 Apr 1990 aBangladesh 2 Aug 1990 aBarbados16 Oct 1992 aBelarus22 Mar 1985 20 Jun 1986 ABelgium22 Mar 1985 17 Oct 1988 Belize 6 Jun 1997 aBenin 1 Jul 1993 aBhutan23 Aug 2004 aBolivia (Plurinational State of) 3 Oct 1994 aBosnia and Herzegovina<superscript>2</superscript> 1 Sep 1993 dBotswana 4 Dec 1991 aBrazil19 Mar 1990 aBrunei Darussalam26 Jul 1990 aBulgaria20 Nov 1990 aBurkina Faso12 Dec 1985 30 Mar 1989 Burundi 6 Jan 1997 aCabo Verde31 Jul 2001 aCambodia27 Jun 2001 aCameroon30 Aug 1989 aCanada22 Mar 1985 4 Jun 1986 Central African Republic29 Mar 1993 aChad18 May 1989 aChile22 Mar 1985 6 Mar 1990 China<superscript>3,4</superscript>11 Sep 1989 aColombia16 Jul 1990 aComoros31 Oct 1994 aCongo16 Nov 1994 aCook Islands22 Dec 2003 aCosta Rica30 Jul 1991 aCôte d'Ivoire 5 Apr 1993 aCroatia<superscript>2</superscript>21 Sep 1992 dCuba14 Jul 1992 aCyprus28 May 1992 aCzech Republic<superscript>5</superscript>30 Sep 1993 dDemocratic People's Republic of Korea24 Jan 1995 aDemocratic Republic of the Congo30 Nov 1994 aDenmark22 Mar 1985 29 Sep 1988 Djibouti30 Jul 1999 aDominica31 Mar 1993 aDominican Republic18 May 1993 aEcuador10 Apr 1990 aEgypt22 Mar 1985 9 May 1988 El Salvador 2 Oct 1992 aEquatorial Guinea17 Aug 1988 aEritrea10 Mar 2005 aEstonia17 Oct 1996 aEswatini10 Nov 1992 aEthiopia11 Oct 1994 aEuropean Union22 Mar 1985 17 Oct 1988 AAFiji23 Oct 1989 aFinland22 Mar 1985 26 Sep 1986 France22 Mar 1985 4 Dec 1987 AAGabon 9 Feb 1994 aGambia25 Jul 1990 aGeorgia21 Mar 1996 aGermany<superscript>6,7</superscript>22 Mar 1985 30 Sep 1988 Ghana24 Jul 1989 aGreece22 Mar 1985 29 Dec 1988 Grenada31 Mar 1993 aGuatemala11 Sep 1987 aGuinea25 Jun 1992 aGuinea-Bissau12 Nov 2002 aGuyana12 Aug 1993 aHaiti29 Mar 2000 aHoly See 5 May 2008 aHonduras14 Oct 1993 aHungary 4 May 1988 aIceland29 Aug 1989 aIndia18 Mar 1991 aIndonesia26 Jun 1992 aIran (Islamic Republic of) 3 Oct 1990 aIraq25 Jun 2008 aIreland15 Sep 1988 aIsrael30 Jun 1992 aItaly22 Mar 1985 19 Sep 1988 Jamaica31 Mar 1993 aJapan30 Sep 1988 aJordan31 May 1989 aKazakhstan26 Aug 1998 aKenya 9 Nov 1988 aKiribati 7 Jan 1993 aKuwait23 Nov 1992 aKyrgyzstan31 May 2000 aLao People's Democratic Republic21 Aug 1998 aLatvia28 Apr 1995 aLebanon30 Mar 1993 aLesotho25 Mar 1994 aLiberia15 Jan 1996 aLibya11 Jul 1990 aLiechtenstein 8 Feb 1989 aLithuania18 Jan 1995 aLuxembourg17 Apr 1985 17 Oct 1988 Madagascar 7 Nov 1996 aMalawi 9 Jan 1991 aMalaysia29 Aug 1989 aMaldives26 Apr 1988 aMali28 Oct 1994 aMalta15 Sep 1988 aMarshall Islands11 Mar 1993 aMauritania26 May 1994 aMauritius<superscript>8</superscript>18 Aug 1992 aMexico 1 Apr 1985 14 Sep 1987 Micronesia (Federated States of) 3 Aug 1994 aMonaco12 Mar 1993 aMongolia 7 Mar 1996 aMontenegro<superscript>9</superscript>23 Oct 2006 dMorocco 7 Feb 1986 28 Dec 1995 Mozambique 9 Sep 1994 aMyanmar24 Nov 1993 aNamibia20 Sep 1993 aNauru12 Nov 2001 aNepal 6 Jul 1994 aNetherlands (Kingdom of the)<superscript>10</superscript>22 Mar 1985 28 Sep 1988 ANew Zealand<superscript>11</superscript>21 Mar 1986 2 Jun 1987 Nicaragua 5 Mar 1993 aNiger 9 Oct 1992 aNigeria31 Oct 1988 aNiue22 Dec 2003 aNorth Macedonia<superscript>2</superscript>10 Mar 1994 dNorway22 Mar 1985 23 Sep 1986 Oman30 Jun 1999 aPakistan18 Dec 1992 aPalau29 May 2001 aPanama13 Feb 1989 aPapua New Guinea27 Oct 1992 aParaguay 3 Dec 1992 aPeru22 Mar 1985 7 Apr 1989 Philippines17 Jul 1991 aPoland13 Jul 1990 aPortugal<superscript>3</superscript>17 Oct 1988 aQatar22 Jan 1996 aRepublic of Korea27 Feb 1992 aRepublic of Moldova24 Oct 1996 aRomania27 Jan 1993 aRussian Federation22 Mar 1985 18 Jun 1986 ARwanda11 Oct 2001 aSamoa21 Dec 1992 aSan Marino23 Apr 2009 aSao Tome and Principe19 Nov 2001 aSaudi Arabia 1 Mar 1993 aSenegal19 Mar 1993 aSerbia<superscript>2</superscript>12 Mar 2001 dSeychelles 6 Jan 1993 aSierra Leone29 Aug 2001 aSingapore 5 Jan 1989 aSlovakia<superscript>5</superscript>28 May 1993 dSlovenia<superscript>2</superscript> 6 Jul 1992 dSolomon Islands17 Jun 1993 aSomalia 1 Aug 2001 aSouth Africa15 Jan 1990 aSouth Sudan12 Jan 2012 aSpain25 Jul 1988 aSri Lanka15 Dec 1989 aSt. Kitts and Nevis10 Aug 1992 aSt. Lucia28 Jul 1993 aSt. Vincent and the Grenadines 2 Dec 1996 aState of Palestine18 Mar 2019 aSudan29 Jan 1993 aSuriname14 Oct 1997 aSweden22 Mar 1985 26 Nov 1986 Switzerland22 Mar 1985 17 Dec 1987 Syrian Arab Republic12 Dec 1989 aTajikistan 6 May 1996 aThailand 7 Jul 1989 aTimor-Leste16 Sep 2009 aTogo25 Feb 1991 aTonga29 Jul 1998 aTrinidad and Tobago28 Aug 1989 aTunisia25 Sep 1989 aTürkiye20 Sep 1991 aTurkmenistan18 Nov 1993 aTuvalu15 Jul 1993 aUganda24 Jun 1988 aUkraine22 Mar 1985 18 Jun 1986 AUnited Arab Emirates22 Dec 1989 aUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland<superscript>4,12</superscript>20 May 1985 15 May 1987 United Republic of Tanzania 7 Apr 1993 aUnited States of America22 Mar 1985 27 Aug 1986 Uruguay27 Feb 1989 aUzbekistan18 May 1993 aVanuatu21 Nov 1994 aVenezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 1 Sep 1988 aViet Nam26 Jan 1994 aYemen21 Feb 1996 aZambia24 Jan 1990 aZimbabwe 3 Nov 1992 a
Declarations (Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations were made upon ratification, acceptance, approval, accession or succession.) AndorraDeclaration:The Principality of Andorra accepts as compulsory the means of dispute as described in article 11 paragraph 3 (a) of the Convention: the submission of the dispute to the International Court of Justice.Bahrain<superscript>13,14</superscript>European Union<right>23 May 1989</right>"1. On behalf of the European Community, it is hereby declared that the said Community can accept arbitration as a means of dispute settlement within the terms of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.It cannot accept submission of any dispute to the International Court of Justice.""2. According to the customary procedures within the European Community, the Community's financial participation in the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and in the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the Ozone Layer may not involve the Community in expenditure other than administrative costs which may not exceed 2.5% of the total administrative costs."Declaration by the European Economic Community in conformity with Article 13 (3) of the Vienna Convention for the protection of the ozone layer concerning the extent of its competence with respect to the matters covered by the Convention and by the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer: In accordance with the relevant Articles of the EEC Treaty, the Community has competence to take action relating to the preservation, protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.The Community has exercised its competence in the area covered by the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol in adopting Council Decision 80/372/EEC of 26 March 1980 concerning chlorofluorocarbons in the environment (1), Council Decision 82/795/EEC of 15 November 1982 on the consolidation of precautionary measures concerning chlorofluorocarbons in the environment (2) and Council Regulation (EEC) N˚ 3322/88 of 14 October 1988 on certain chlorofluorocarbons and halons which deplete the ozone layer. The Community may well exercise its competence in the future by adopting further legislation in this area.In the field of research in the environment, as referred to by the Convention, the Community has a certain competence by virtue of Council Decision 86/234/EC of 10 June 1986 adopting multiannual R& D programmes in the field of the environment (1986 to 1990).(1) OJ N˚ L 90, 3. 4. 1980, p. 45.(2) OJ N˚ L 329, 25. 11. 1982, p. 29.Finland"With respect to article 11, paragraph 3 of the Convention Finland declares that it accepts both of the said means of dispute settlement as compulsory."Holy See<i>Declaration:</i>“In acceding to the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, as well as its four Amendments: London (1990), Copenhagen (1992), Montreal (1997) and Beijing (1999), the Holy See desires to encourage the entire International Community to be resolute in promoting authentic cooperation between politics, science and economics. Such cooperation, as has been shown in the case of the ozone regime, can achieve important outcomes, which make it simultaneously possible to safeguard creation, to promote integral human development and to care for the common good, in a spirit of responsible solidarity and with profound positive repercussions for present and future generations.In conformity with its own nature and with the particular character of Vatican City State, the Holy See, by means of the solemn act of accession, intends to give its own moral support to the commitment of States to the correct and effective implementation of the Treaties in question and to the attaining of the mentioned objectives. To this end, it expresses the wish that by recognizing ‘the signs of [an economic growth] that has not always been able to protect the delicate balances of nature’ (Homily of Pope Benedict XVI at Loreto, 2 September 2007), all actors will intensify the aforesaid cooperation and strengthen ‘the alliance between man and the environment, which must mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and to whom we are bound’(Benedict XVI, After the Angelus, 16 September 2007).”Netherlands (Kingdom of the)Declaration:"In accordance with article 11, paragraph 3, of the Conven- tion the Kingdom of the Netherlands accepts for a dispute not resolved in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 of article 11 of the above-mentioned Convention, both of the following means of dispute settlement as compulsory:(a) Arbitration in accordance with procedures to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its first ordinary meeting;(b) Submission of the dispute to the International Court of Justice."Norway"Norway accepts the means of dispute settlement as described in art. 11, para 3 ( <i>a </i>) and ( <i>b </i>) of the Convention as compulsory, that is <i>a </i>) arbitration in accordance with procedures to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its first ordinary meeting, or <i>b </i>) submission of the dispute to the International Court of Justice."Sweden"Sweden accepts the following means of dispute settlement as compulsory:Submission of the dispute to the International Court of Justice [article 11, paragraph 3 ( <i>b </i>)]It is, however, the intention of the Swedish Government to accept also the following means of dispute settlement as com-pulsory:Arbitration in accordance with procedures to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its first ordinary meeting [article 11, paragraph 3 ( <i>a </i>)].A declaration in this latter respect will, however, not be given until the procedures for arbitration have been adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its first ordinary meeting."1For the purpose of entry into force of the [Convention/Protocol] , any instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession deposited by a regional economic integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by member States of that Organization.2The former Yugoslavia had acceeded to the Convention on 16 April 1990. 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.3On 15 February 1994, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Portugal a notification to the effect that it shall extend the Convention to Macao. Subsequently, the Secretary-General received communications concerning the status of Macao from the Governments of the Portugal 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.4On 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 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 the reservation made by China will also apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.5Czechoslovakia had acceded to the Convention on 1 October 1990. 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 25 January 1989. 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.8On 9 January 2020, the Secretary-General received a communication from the Government of Mauritius relating to the Chagos Archipelago. See C.N.47.2020.TREATIES-XXVII.2 of 31 January 2020 for the text of the above-mentioned communication.9See note 1 under "Montenegro" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.10For the Kingdom in Europe, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.11The instrument of ratification indicates that in accordance with the special relationship which exists between New Zealand and the Cook Islands and between New Zealand and Niue, there have been consultations regarding the Convention between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of Cook Islands and between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of Niue; that the Government of the Cook Islands, which has exclusive competence to implement treaties in the Cook Islands, has requested that the Convention should extend to the Cook Islands; that the Government of Niue which has exclusive competence to implement treaties in Niue, has requested that the Convention should extend to Niue. The said instrument specifies that accordingly the Convention shall apply also to the Cook Islands and Niue.In this regard, on 17 March 2004, the Secretary-General received from the Government of New Zealand, the following communcations:In respect of the Cook Islands:"... the Government of New Zealand ratified the Convention on 2 June 1987;... the Government of New Zealand declared, on ratification, that its ratification extended to the Cook Islands;... the Cook Islands is a self-governing State in a relationship of free association with New Zealand, and possesses in its own right the capacity to enter into treaties and other international agreements with governments and regional and international organisations;... the Government of the Cook Islands acceded to the Convention in its own right on 22 December 2003;... the Government of New Zealand declares that, by reason of the accession to the Convention by the Government of the Cook Islands, it regards the Government of Cook Islands as having succeeded to the obligations under the Convention of the Government of New Zealand in respect of the Cook Islands,... [the Government of New Zealand] declares that, accordingly, as from the date of the accession to the Convention by the Government of the Cook Islands, theernment of New Zealand ceased to have State responsibility for the observance of the obligations under the Convention in respect of the Cook Islands."In respect of Niue:"... the Government of New Zealand ratified the Convention on 2 June 1987;... the Government of New Zealand declared, on ratification, that its ratification extended to Niue;... Niue is a self-governing State in a relationship of free association with New Zealand, and possesses in its own right the capacity to enter into treaties and other international agreements with governments and regional and international organisations;... the Government of Niue acceded to the Convention in its own right on 22 December 2003;... the Government of New Zealand declares that, by reason of the accession to the Convention by the Government of Niue, it regards the Government of Niue as having succeeded to the obligations under the Convention of the Government of New Zealand in respect of Niue,... [the Government of New Zealand] further declares that, accordingly, as from the date of the accession to the Convention by the Government of Niue, the Government of New Zealand ceased to have State responsibility for the observance of the obligations under the Convention in respect of the territory of Niue."See also notes 1 under “Cook Islands” and “Niue” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.12The instrument of ratification specifies that the said Convention is ratified in respect of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Bailiwick of Jersey, the Isle of Man, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Monserrat, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, Saint Helena, Saint Helena Dependencies, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, and United Kingdom Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in the island of Cyprus. In this regard, the Secretary-General received, on 11 September 1987, from the Government of Argentina the following objection, which was reiterated upon its ratification of the Convention: The Argentine Republic rejects the ratification of the above-mentioned Convention by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with respect to the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and reaffirms its sovereignty over those Islands, which form a part of its national territory. The United Nations General Assembly has adopted resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12 and 39/6 in which it recognizes the existence of a sovereignty dispute concerning the question of the Malvinas and urges the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute and to their remaining differences relating to the question, through the good offices of the Secretary-General, who is to report to the General Assembly on the progress made. The United Nations General Assembly also adopted resolution 40/21 and 41/40, which again urge the two parties to resume the negotiations. The Argentine Republic also rejects the ratification of the above-mentioned Convention by the Government of th United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with respect to what that country calls "British Antarctic Territory". At the same time, it reaffirms its rights of sovereignty over the Argentine Antarctic Sector located between longitudes 25 <superscript>o</superscript> and 74 <superscript>o</superscript> W and latitude 60 <superscript>o</superscript> S and the South Pole, including its maritime spaces. It is appropriate to recall, in this connection, the provisions concerning rights of or claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica contained in article IV of the Antarctic Treaty. Subsequently, on 1 August 1988, the Secretary-General received from the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the following communication concerning the said objection by Argentina: "The Government of the United Kingdom reject the objection made regarding the application of the Convention by the United Kingdom to the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Government of the United Kingdom have no doubt as to British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and their consequent right to extend treaties to those territories. With respect to the objection by the Argentine Republic to the application of the Convention to the British Antarctic Territory, the Government of the United Kingdom have no doubt as to British sovereignty over the British Antarctic Territory, and note the Argentine reference to article IV of the Antarctic Treaty to which both the Government of Argentina andthe Government of the United Kingdom are parties." Upon its ratification of the Convention, the Government of Argentina objected anew to the declaration of territorial applications in question by the Government of the United Kingdom, which in turn reiterated its position in an additional communication received on 6 July 1990. Subsequently, the Government of Chile, upon ratification, declared the following: The Government of Chile [. . .] states that it rejects the declarations made by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland upon ratification of the Convention and by the Argentine Republic in objecting to that declaration, inasmuch as both declarations affect Chilean Antarctic territory, including the corresponding maritime jurisdictions. It once again reaffirms its sovereignty over that territory, including its sovereign maritime spaces, in accordance with the definition established by Supreme Decree 1,747, of 6 November 1940. By a communication received on 30 August 1990, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland notified the Secretary-General that the Convention and the Protocol shall extend to the Bailiwick of Guernsey for whose international relations the Government of the United Kingdom is responsible. The Government of Mauritius, upon acceding to the Convention, made the following declaration: "The Republic of Mauritius rejects the ratification of [the Con- vention] effected by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 15 May 1987 in respect of the British Indian Ocean Territory namely Chagos Archipelago and reaffirms its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, which form an integral part of its national territory." Subsequently, on 27 January 1993, the Secretary-General received from the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the following communication with respect to the declaration made by the Government of Mauritius: "The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have no doubt as to British sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory and their consequent right to extend the application of the [said] Convention and Protocol to it. Accordingly, the Government of the United Kingdom do not accept or regard as having any legal effect the declarations made by the Government of the Republic of Mauritius. On 17 April 2015, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Spain the following communication relating to the territorial application by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Gibraltar: 1. Gibraltar is a Non-Self-Governing Territory for whose international relations the Government of the United Kingdom is responsible and which is subject to a process of decolonization in accordance with the relevant decisions and resolutions of the General Assembly. 2. The authorities of Gibraltar are local in character, and exercise competences exclusively over internal affairs that originate in and are based on the powers allocated to and conferred on them by the United Kingdom, in accordance with its domestic legislation and in its capacity as the sovereign State upon which depends the said Non-Self-Governing Territory. 3. Consequently, any involvement by the Gibraltarian authorities in the implementation of this Convention shall be understood to take place exclusively within the framework of the internal affairs of Gibraltar and shall not be considered to affect in any way the content of the two preceding paragraphs. 4. The procedure envisaged in the “Arrangements relating to Gibraltar authorities in the context of Mixed Agreements (2007)” which was agreed by Spain and the United Kingdom on 19 December 2007, together with "Agreed Arrangements relating to Gibraltar authorities in the context of European Union and European Community Instruments and Related Treaties" of 19 April 2000, applies to the present Convention. 5. The application of the present Convention to Gibraltar cannot be interpreted as recognition of any rights or situations involving matters not included in Article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht of 13 July 1713, signed by the crowns of Spain and Great Britain.13In this regard, the Government of Israel notified the Secretary-General, on 18 July 1990, of the following: 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 the Convention and Protocol 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."14On 8 July 2021, the Government of Bahrain notified the Secretary-General of its withdrawal of the following declaration made upon accession: "The 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."