Afghanistan
Reservation: While acceding to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the Convention since according to this article, in the event of disagreement between two or several States Parties to the Convention on the interpretation and implementation of provisions of the Convention, the matters could be referred to the International Court of Justice upon the request of only one side. The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, therefore, states that should any disagreement emerge on the interpretation and implementation of the Convention, the matter will be referred to the International Court of Justice only if all concerned parties agree with that procedure.
Declaration: Furthermore, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan states that the provisions of articles 17 and 18 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination have a discriminatory nature against some states and therefore are not in conformity with the principle of universality of international treaties.
Antigua and Barbuda
Declaration: "The Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda entrenches and guarantees to every person in Antigua and Barbuda the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual irrespective of race or place of origin. The Constitution prescribes judicial processes to be observed in the event of the violation of any of these rights, whether by the state or by a private individual. Acceptance of the Convention by the Government of Antigua and Barbuda does not imply the acceptance of obligations going beyond the constitutional limits nor the acceptance of any obligations to introduce judicial processes beyond those provided in the Constitution. The Government of Antigua and Barbuda interprets article 4 of the Convention as requiring a Party to enact measures in the fields covered by subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only where it is considered that the need arises to enact such legislation."
Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Bahrain18,19
Reservations: "With reference to article 22 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. ..."
Barbados
Belarus20
Belgium
Bulgaria21
China22
Reservation: The People's Republic of China has reservations on the provisions of article 22 of the Convention and will not be bound by it. (The reservation was circulated by the Secretary-General on 13 January 1982.)
Declaration: The signing and ratification of the said Convention by the Taiwan authorities in the name of China are illegal and null and void.
Cuba
Upon signature: The Government of the Republic of Cuba will make such reservations as it may deem appropriate if and when the Convention is ratified.
Upon ratification:
Reservation: The Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Cuba does not accept the provision in article 22 of the Convention to the effect that disputes between two or more States Parties shall be referred to the International Court of Justice, since it considers that such disputes should be settled exclusively by the procedures expressly provided for in the Convention or by negotiation through the diplomatic channel between the disputants.
Statement: This Convention, intended to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination, should not, as it expressly does in articles 17 and 18, exclude States not Members of the United Nations, members of the specialized agencies or Parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice from making an effective contribution under the Convention, since these articles constitute in themselves a form of discrimination that is at variance with the principles set out in the Convention; the Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Cuba accordingly ratifies the Convention, but with the qualification just indicated.
Czech Republic9
Denmark10
Egypt18,23
Equatorial Guinea
Reservation: The Republic of Equatorial Guinea does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the Convention, under which any dispute between two or more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of the Convention is, at the request of any of the parties to the dispute, to be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision. The Republic of Equatorial Guinea considers that, in each individual case, the consent of all parties is necessary for referring the dispute to the International Court of Justice.
Fiji24
France25
Grenada26
Declaration: “The Constitution of Grenada entrenches and guarantees to every person in the State of Grenada the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual irrespective of his race or place of origin. The Constitution prescribes judicial processes to be observed in the event of the violation of any of these rights whether by the State or by a private individual. Ratification of the Convention by Grenada does not imply the acceptance of obligations going beyond the constitutional limits nor the acceptance of any obligations to introduce judicial processes beyond those provided in the Constitution. The Government of Grenada interprets article 4 of the said Convention as requiring a Party to the Convention to enact measures in the fields covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only where it considers that the need arises to enact such legislation.”
Guyana
Hungary27
India28
Indonesia
Reservation: "The Government of the Republic of Indonesia does not consider itself bound by the provision of Article 22 and takes the position that disputes relating to the interpretation and application of the [Convention] which cannot be settled through the channel provided for in the said article, may be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the consent of all the parties to the dispute."
Iraq18
Upon signature: "The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Iraq hereby declares that signature for and on behalf of the Republic of Iraq of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 21 December 1965, as well as approval by the Arab States of the said Convention and entry into it by their respective governments, shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or lead to entry by the Arab States into such dealings with Israel as may be regulated by the said Convention. "Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Iraq does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article twenty-two of the Convention afore-mentioned and affirms its reservation that it does not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice provided for in the said article."
Upon ratification: 1. The acceptance and ratification of the Convention by Iraq shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or be conducive to entry by Iraq into such dealings with Israel as are regulated by the Convention; 2. Iraq does not accept the provisions of article 22 of the Convention, concerning the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The Republic of Iraq does not consider itself to be bound by the provisions of article 22 of the Convention and deems it necessary that in all cases the approval of all parties to the dispute be secured before the case is referred to the International Court of Justice.
Ireland
Reservation/Interpetative declaration: “Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination provides that the measures specifically described in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) shall be undertaken with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in Article 5 of the Convention. Ireland threfore considers that through such measures, the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to peaceful assembly and association may not be jeopardised. These rights are laid down in Articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; they were reaffirmed by the General Assembly of the United Nations when it adopted Articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and are referred to in Article 5 (d)(viii) and (ix) of the present Convention.”
Israel
Italy
Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: (a) The positive measures, provided for in article 4 of the Convention and specifically described in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of that article, designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, discrimination, are to be interpreted, as that article provides, "with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5" of the Convention. Consequently, the obligations deriving from the aforementioned article 4 are not to jeopardize the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association which are laid down in articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, were reaffirmed by the General Assembly of the United Nations when it adopted articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and are referred to in articles 5 (d) (viii) and (ix) of the Convention. In fact, the Italian Government, in conformity with the obligations resulting from Articles 55 (c) and 56 of the Charter of the United Nations, remains faithful to the principle laid down in article 29 (2) of the Universal Declaration, which provides that "in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." (b) Effective remedies against acts of racial discrimination which violate his individual rights and fundamental freedoms will be assured to everyone, in conformity with article 6 ofthe Convention, by the ordinary courts within the framework of their respective jurisdiction. Claims for reparation for any damage suffered as a result of acts of racial discrimination must be brought against the persons responsible for the malicious or criminal acts which caused such damage.
Jamaica
Japan
Reservation: "In applying the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of article 4 of the [said Convention] Japan fulfills the obligations under those provisions to the extent that fulfillment of the obligations is compatible with the guarantee of the rights to freedom of assembly, association and expression and other rights under the Constitution of Japan, noting the phrase `with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention' referred to in article 4."
Kuwait18
Lebanon
Libya18
Madagascar
Malta
Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratifica- tion : "The Government of Malta wishes to state its understanding of certain articles in the Convention. "It interprets article 4 as requiring a party to the Convention to adopt further measures in the fields covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article should it consider, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights set forth in article 5 of the Convention, that the need arises to enact ‘ ad hoc ’ legislation, in addition to or variation of existing law and practice to bring to an end any act of racial discrimination. "Further, the Government of Malta interprets the requirements in article 6 concerning `reparation or satisfaction' as being fulfilled if one or other of these forms of redress is made available and interprets `satisfaction' as including any form of redress effective to bring the discriminatory conduct to an end."
Monaco
Reservation regarding article 2, paragraph 1: Monaco reserves the right to apply its own legal provisions concerning the admission of foreigners to the labour market of the Principality.
Reservation regarding article 4: Monaco interprets the reference in that article to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to the rights enumerated in article 5 of the Convention as releasing States Parties from the obligation to promulgate repressive laws which are incompatible with freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association, which are guaranteed by those instruments.
Mongolia29
Morocco
Mozambique
Reservation: "The People's Republic of Mozambique does not consider to be bound by the provision of article 22 and wishes to restate that for the submission of any dispute to the International Court of Justice for decision in terms of the said article, the consent of all parties to such a dispute is necessary in each individual case."
Nepal
Papua New Guinea22
Reservation: "The Government of Papua New Guinea interprets article 4 of the Convention as requiring a party to the Convention to adopt further legislative measures in the areas covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only in so far as it may consider with due regard to the principles contained in the Universal Declaration set out in Article 5 of the Convention that some legislative addition to, or variation of existing law and practice, is necessary to give effect to the provisions of article 4. In addition, the Constitution of Papua New Guinea guarantees certain fundamental rights and freedoms to all persons irrespective of their race or place of origin. The Constitution also provides for judicial protection of these rights and freedoms. Acceptance of this Convention does not therefore indicate the acceptance of obligations by the Government of Papua New Guinea which go beyond those provided by the Constitution, nor does it indicate the acceptance of any obligation to introduce judicial process beyond that provided by the Constitution". (The reservation was circulated by the Secretary-General on 22 February 1982.)
Poland30
Republic of Korea
5 March 1997
Romania31
Russian Federation20
Rwanda32
Saudi Arabia
Reservations: [The Government of Saudi Arabia declares that it will] implement the provisions [of the above Convention], providing these do not conflict with the precepts of the Islamic Shariah . The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia shall not be bound by the provisions of article (22) of this Convention, since it considers that any dispute should be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the approval of the States Parties to the dispute.
Singapore
Reservations and declarations made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: "The Government of the Republic of Singapore makes the following reservations and declarations in relation to articles 2, 6 and 22 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (hereinafter referred to as the “Convention”) adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York on the 21st day of December 1965 and signed on behalf of the Republic of Singapore today: (1) The Republic of Singapore reserves the right to apply its policies concerning the admission and regulation of foreign work pass holders, with a view to promoting integration and maintaining cohesion within its racially diverse society. (2) The Republic of Singapore understands that the obligation imposed by Article 2, paragraph 1 (d) of the Convention may be implemented by means other than legislation if such means are appropriate, and if legislation is not required by circumstances. (3) The Republic of Singapore interprets the requirement in Article 6 of the Convention concerning “reparation or satisfaction” as being fulfilled if one or other of these forms of redress is made available and interprets “satisfaction” as including any form of redress effective to bring the discriminatory conduct to an end. (4) With reference to Article 22 of the Convention, the Republic of Singapore states that 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."
Slovakia9
Spain33
Switzerland
Reservation concerning article 4: Switzerland reserves the right to take the legislative measures necessary for the implementation of article 4, taking due account of freedom of opinion and freedom of association, provided for inter alia in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Reservation concerning article 2, paragraph 1 (a): Switzerland reserves the right to apply its legal provisions concerning the admission of foreigners to the Swiss market.
Syrian Arab Republic18
Thailand
Interpretative declaration : "General Interpretative Declaration The Kingdom of Thailand does not interpret and apply the provisions of this Convention as imposing upon the Kingdom of Thailand any obligation beyond the confines of the Constitution and the laws of the Kingdom of Thailand. In addition, such interpretation and application shall be limited to or consistent with the obligations under other international human rights instruments to which the Kingdom of Thailand is party. Reservations 1. The Kingdom of Thailand does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 22 of the Convention."
Tonga34
Reservation: "To the extent, [...], that any law relating to land in Tonga which prohibits or restricts the alienation of land by the indigenous inhabitants may not fulfil the obligations referred to in article 5 (d) (v), [...], the Kingdom of Tonga reserves the right not to apply the Convention to Tonga.
Declaration: "Secondly, the Kingdom of Tonga wishes to state its understanding of certain articles in the Convention. It interprets article 4 as requiring a party to the Convention to adopt further legislative measures in the fields covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only in so far as it may consider with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of the Convention (in particular the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association) that some legislative addition to or variation of existing law and practice in those fields is necessary for the attainment of the end specified in the earlier part of article 4. Further, the Kingdom of Tonga interprets the requirement in article 6 concerning `reparation or satisfaction' as being fulfilled if one or other of these forms of redress is made available and interprets `satisfaction' as including any form of redress effective to bring the discriminatory conduct to an end. In addition it interprets article 20 and the other related provisions of Part III of the Convention as meaning that if a reservation is not accepted the State making the reservation does not become a Party to the Convention. "Lastly, the Kingdom of Tonga maintains its position in regard to article 15. In its view this article is discriminatory in that it establishes a procedure for the receipt of petitions relating to dependent territories while making no comparable provision for States without such territories. Moreover, the article purports to establish arocedure applicable to the dependent territories of States whether or not those States have become parties to the Convention. His Majesty's Government have decided that the Kingdom of Tonga should accede to the Convention, these objections notwithstanding because of the importance they attach to the Convention as a whole."
Türkiye
Declarations and reservation: "The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement the provisions of this Convention only to the States Parties with which it has diplomatic relations. The Republic of Turkey declares that this Convention is ratified exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied. The Republic of Turkey does not consider itself bound by Article 22 of this Convention. The explicit consent of the Republic of Turkey is necessary in each individual case before any dispute to which the Republic of Turkey is party concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention may be referred to the International Court of Justice."
Ukraine20
United Arab Emirates18
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Upon signature: Subject to the following reservation and interpretative statements: "First, in the present circumstances deriving from the usurpation of power in Rhodesia by the illegal régime, the United Kingdom must sign subject to a reservation of the right not to apply the Convention to Rhodesia unless and until the United Kingdom informs the Secretary-General of the United Nations that it is in a position to ensure that the obligations imposed by the Convention in respect of that territory can be fully implemented. "Secondly, the United Kingdom wishes to state its under- standing of certain articles in the Convention. It interprets article 4 as requiring a party to the Convention to adopt further legislative measures in the fields covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only in so far as it may consider with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of the Convention (in particular the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association) that some legislative addition to or variation of existing law and practice in those fields is necessary for the attainment of the end specified in the earlier part of article 4. Further, the United Kingdom interprets the requirement in article 6 concerning `reparation or satisfaction' as being fulfilled if one or other of these forms of redress is made available and interprets `satisfaction' as including any form of redress effective to bring the discriminatory conduct to an end. In addition it interprets article 20 and the other related provisions of Part III of the Convention as meaning that if a reservation is not accepted the State making the reservation does not become a Party to the Convention. "Lastly, the United Kingdom maintains its position in regard to article 15. In its view this article is discriminatory in that it establishes arocedure for the receipt of petitions relating to dependent territories while making no comparable provision for States without such territories. Moreover, the article purports to establish a procedure applicable to the dependent territories of States whether or not those States have become parties to the Convention. Her Majesty's Government have decided that the United Kingdom should sign the Convention, these objections notwithstanding, because of the importance they attach to the Convention as a whole."
Upon ratification: "First, the reservation and interpretative statements made by the United Kingdom at the time of signature of the Convention are maintained. "Secondly, the United Kingdom does not regard the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts, 1962 and 1968, or their application, as involving any racial discrimination within the meaning of paragraph 1 of article 1, or any other provision of the Convention, and fully reserves its right to continue to apply those Acts. "Lastly, to the extent if any, that any law relating to election in Fiji may not fulfil the obligations referred to in article 5 (c), that any law relating to land in Fiji which prohibits or restricts the alienation of land by the indigenous inhabitants may not fulfil the obligations referred to in article 5 (d) (v), or that the school system of Fiji may not fulfil the obligations referred to in articles 2, 3 or 5 (e) (v), the United Kingdom reserves the right not to apply the Convention to Fiji."
United States of America
Upon signature: "The Constitution of the United States contains provisions for the protection of individual rights, such as the right of free speech, and nothing in the Convention shall be deemed to require or to authorize legislation or other action by the United States of America incompatible with the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America."
Upon ratification: "I. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following reservations: (1) That the Constitution and laws of the United States contain extensive protections of individual freedom of speech, expression and association. Accordingly, the United States does not accept any obligation under this Convention, in particular under articles 4 and 7, to restrict those rights, through the adoption of legislation or any other measures, to the extent that they are protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States. (2) That the Constitution and laws of the United States establish extensive protections against discrimination, reaching significant areas of non-governmental activity. Individual privacy and freedom from governmental interference in private conduct, however, are also recognized as among the fundamental values which shape our free and democratic society. The United States understands that the identification of the rights protected under the Convention by reference in article 1 to fields of `public life' reflects a similar distinction between spheres of public conduct that are customarily the subject of governmental regulation, and spheres of private conduct that are not. To the extent, however, that the Convention calls for a broader regulation of private conduct, the United States does not accept any obligation under this Convention to enact legislation or take other measures under paragraph (1) of article 2, subparagraphs (1) (c) and (d) of article 2, article 3 and article 5 with respect to private conduct except as mandated by the Constitution and laws of the United States. (3) That with reference to article 22 of the Convention, before 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. II. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following understanding, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention: That the United States understands that this Convention shall be implemented by the Federal Government to the extent that it exercises jurisdiction over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the state and local governments. To the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal Government shall, as necessary, take appropriate measures to ensure the fulfilment of this Convention. III. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following declaration: That the United States declares that the provisions of the Convention are not self-executing."
Viet Nam22
Declaration: (1) The Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam declares that the provisions of article 17 (1) and of article 18 (1) of the Convention whereby a number of States are deprived of the opportunity of becoming Parties to the said Convention are of a discriminatory nature and it considers that, in accordance with the principle of the sovereign equality of States, the Convention should be open to participation by all States without discrimination or restriction of any kind.
Reservation: (2) The Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 22 of the Convention and holds that, for any dispute with regard to the interpretation or application of the Convention to be brought before the International Court of Justice, the consent of all parties to the dispute is necessary. (The reservation was circulated by the Secretary-General on 10 August 1982.)
Yemen17,18
8 August 1989
19 February 1998
With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi Arabia upon accession: "Austria is of the view that a reservation by which a State limits its responsibilities under the Convention in a general and unspecified manner creates doubts as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with its obligations under the Convention, essential for the fulfilment of its objection and purpose. According to paragraph 2 of article 20 a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of this Convention shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become Parties are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. Austria is further of the view that a general reservation of the kind made by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which does not clearly specify the provisions of the Convention to which it applies and the extent of the derogation therefrom, contributes to undermining the basis of international treaty law. According to international law a reservation is inadmissible to the extent as its application negatively affects the compliance by a State with its obligations under the Convention essential for the fulfilment of its object and purpose. Therefore, Austria cannot consider the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as admissible unless the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by providing additional information or through subsequent practice, ensures that the reservation is compatible with the provisions essential for the implementation of the object and purpose of the Convention. This view by Austria would not preclude the entry into force in its entirety of the Convention between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Austria.”
Belarus
29 December 1983
8 August l989
With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): These reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and consequently are not permitted pursuant to article 20, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
Canada
10 August 1989
With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): "The effect of these reservations would be to allow racial discrimination in respect of certain of the rights enumerated in Article 5. Since the objective of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, as stated in its Preamble, is to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and manifestations, the Government of Canada believes that the reservations made by the Yemen Arab Republic are incompatible with the object and purpose of the International Convention. Moreover, the Government of Canada believes that the principle of non-discrimination is generally accepted and recognized in international law and therefore is binding on all states."
Cyprus
5 August 2003
With regard to the reservation made by Turkey upon ratification: ".....the Government of the Republic of Cyprus has examined the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Turkey to the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (New York, 7 March 1966) on 16 September 2002 in respect of the implementation of the provisions of the Convention only to the States Parties with which it has diplomatic relations. In the view of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, this declaration amounts to a reservation. This reservation creates uncertainty as to the States Parties in respect of which Turkey is undertaking the obligations in the Convention. The Government of the Republic of Cyprus therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Turkey. This reservation or the objection to it shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Turkey."
Denmark
10 July 1989
With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): "Article 5 contains undertakings, in compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of the Convention, to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the rights enumerated in the article. The reservations made by the Government of Yemen are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and the reservations are consequently impermissible according to article 20, paragraph 2 of the Convention. In accordance with article 20, paragraph 1 of the Convention the Government of Denmark therefore formally objects to these reservations. This objection does not have the effect of preventing the Convention from entering into force between Denmark and Yemen, and the reservations cannot alter or modify in any respect, the obligations arising from the Convention."
Ethiopia
25 January 1984
Finland
7 July 1989
With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning article (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): "The Government of Finland formally, and in accordance with article 20 (2) of the Convention, objects to the reservations made by Yemen to the above provisions. In the first place, the reservations concern matters which are of fundamental importance in the Convention. The first paragraph of article 5 clearly brings this out. According to it, the Parties have undertaken to guarantee the rights listed in that article "In compliance with fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of the Convention". Clearly, provisions prohibiting racial discrimination in the granting of such fundamental political rights and civil liberties as the right to participate in public life, to marry and choose a spouse, to inherit and to enjoy freedom of thought, conscience and religion are central in a convention against racial discrimination. Therefore, the reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, as specified in paragraph 20 (2) thereof and in article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Moreover, it is the view of the Government of Finland that it would be unthinkable that merely by making a reservation to the said provisions, a State could achieve the liberty to start discriminatory practices on the grounds of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin in regard to such fundamental political rights and civil liberties as the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs, the right of marriage and choice of spouse, the right of inheritance and the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Any racial discrimination in respect of those fundamental rights and liberties is clearly against the general principles of human rights law as reflected in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the practice of States and international organizations. By making a reservation atate cannot contract out from universally binding human rights standards. For the above reasons, the Government of Finland notes that the reservations made by Yemen are devoid of legal effect. However, the Government of Finland does not consider that this fact is an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Yemen."
6 February 1998
With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi Arabia upon accession: "The Government of Finland is of the view that this general reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of Saudi Arabia to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that according to paragraph 2 of article 20 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. The Government of Finland would also like to recall that according to the said paragraph a reservation shall be considered incompatible or inhibitive if at least two thirds of the States Parties to the Convention object to it. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of Finland is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by Saudi Arabia, which do not clearly specify the provisions of the Convention to which they apply and the extent of the derogation therefrom, contribute to undermining the basisof international treaty law. The Government of Finland therefore objects to the aforesaid general reservation made by the Government of Saudi Arabia to the [Convention].
France
15 May 1984
20 September 1989
With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): France considers that the reservations made by the Yemen Arab Republic to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination are not valid as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Such objection is not an obstacle to the entry into force of the said Convention between France and the Yemen Arab Republic.
25 April 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Thailand upon accession: The Government of the Republic of France has examined the interpretative declaration made by the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand upon accession to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 7 March 1966. The Government of the Republic of France considers that, by making the interpretation and implementation of the provisions of the Convention subject to respect for the Constitution and legislation of the Kingdom of Thailand, the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand is making a reservation of such a general and indeterminate scope that it is not possible to ascertain which changes to obligations under the Convention it is intended to introduce. Consequently, the Government of France considers that this reservation as formulated could make the provisions of the Convention completely ineffective. For these reasons, the Government objects to this interpretative declaration, which it considers to be a reservation likely toe incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
Germany<superscript>3</superscript>
With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): "These reservations relate to the basic obligations of States Parties to the Convention to prohibit and eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone to equality before the law and include the enjoyment of such fundamental political and civil rights as the right to take part in the conduct of public life, the right to marriage and choice of spouse, the right to inherit and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. As a result, the reservations made by Yemen are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention within the meaning of article 20, paragraph 2 thereof."
3 February 1998
With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi Arabia upon accession: The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the view that this reservation may raise doubts as to the commitment of Saudi Arabia to the object and purpose of the Convention. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany would like to recall that, according to paragraph 2 of article 20 of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the said reservation. The objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Saudi Arabia and the Federal Republic of Germany.
29 April 2003
With regard to the interpretative declaration made by Thailand upon accession: "The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has examined the General Interpretative Declaration to the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination made by the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand at the time of its accession to the Convention. The Government of the Federal Repblic of Germany considers that the General Interpretative Declaration made by Thailand is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on an unilateral basis. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany notes that a reservation to all provisions of a Convention which consists of a general reference to national law without specifying its contents does not clearly define for the other State Parties to the Convention the extend to which the reserving state has accepted the obligations out of the provisions of the Convention. The reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand in respect to the applications of the provisions of the Convention therefore raises doubts as to the commitment of Thailand to fulfill its obligations out of all provisions of the Convention. Hence the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers this reservation to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and objects to the General Interpretative Declaration made by the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Thailand."
7 August 1989
Mexico
11 August 1989
With regard to reservation made by Yemen concerning article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): The Government of the United Mexican States has concluded that, in view of article 20 of the Convention, the reservation must be deemed invalid, as it is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Said reservation, if implemented would result in discrimination to the detriment of a certain sector of the population and, at the same time, would violate the rights established in articles 2, 16 and 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. The objection of the United Mexican States to the reservation in question should not be interpreted as an impediment to the entry into force of the Convention of 1966 between the United States of Mexico and the Government of Yemen.
Mongolia
7 June 1984
Netherlands (Kingdom of the)
25 July 1989
With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): "The Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the above-mentioned reservations, as they are incompatible with object and purpose of the Convention. These objections are not an obstacle for the entry into force of this Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Yemen."
With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi Arabia upon accession:
[Same objection, identical in essence, as the one made for Yemen.]
New Zealand
4 August 1989
With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): "The New Zealand Government is of the view that those provisions contain undertakings which are themselves fundamental to the Convention. Accordingly it considers that the reservations purportedly made by Yemen relating to political and civil rights are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Treaty within the terms of the article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Government of New Zealand advises therefore under article 20 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination that it does not accept the reservations made by Yemen."
Norway
28 July 1989
With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): "The Government of Norway hereby enters its formal objection to the reservations made by Yemen."
With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi Arabia upon accession: "The Government of Norway considers that the reservation made by the Government of Saudi Arabia, due to its unlimited scope and undefined character, is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, and thus impermissible under article 20, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Under well-established treaty law, a State party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform treaty obligations. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the reservation made by the Government of Saudi Arabia. The Government of Norway does not consider this objection to preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Norway and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia."
Romania
3 December 2003
With regard to the general interpretative declaration made by Thailand upon accession: "The Government of Romania has examined the general interpretative declaration made by the Government of Thailand at the time of its accession to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Government of Romania considers that the general interpretative declaration is, in fact, a reservation formulated in general terms, that not allows to clearly identify the obligations assumed by Thailand with regard to this legal instrument and, consequently, to state the consistency of this reservation with the purpose and object of the above-mentioned Convention, in accordance with the provisions of article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). The Government of Romania therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by Thailand to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. This objection, however, shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Government of Romania and Thailand."
Russian Federation
28 December 1983
Spain
18 September 1998
With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi Arabia upon accession: The Government of Spain considers that, given its unlimited scope and undefined nature, the reservation made by the Government of Saudi Arabia is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore inadmissible under article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Under the generally accepted law of treaties, a State party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as a justification for failure to perform its treaty obligations. The Government of Spain therefore formulates an objection to the reservation made by the Government of Saudi Arabia. The Government of Spain does not consider that this objection constitutes an obstacle to the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Spain and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Sweden
5 July 1989
With regard to reservations made by Yemen concerning article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii): "Article 5 contains undertakings, in compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of the Convention, to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the rights enumerated in the article. The Government of Sweden has come to the conclusion that the reservations made by Yemen are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and therefore are impermissible according to article 20, paragraph 2 of the Convention. For this reason the Government of Sweden objects to these reservations. This objection does not have the effect of preventing the Convention from entering into force between Sweden and Yemen, and the reservations cannot alter or modify, in any respect, the obligations arising from the Convention."
27 January 1998
With regard to the general reservation made by Saudi Arabia upon accession: "The Government of Sweden notes that the said reservation is a reservation of a general kind in respect of the provisions of the Convention which may be in conflict with the precepts of the Islamic Shariah . The Government of Sweden is of the view that this general reservation raises doubts as to the commitment [of] Saudi Arabia to the object and purpose of the Convention and would recall that, according to article 20, paragraph 2, of the Convention, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of this Convention shall not be permitted. It is in the common interest of states that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected, as to their object and purpose, by all parties and that states are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessar to comply with their obligations under the treaties. The Government of Sweden is further of the view that general reservations of the kind made by the Government of Saudi Arabia, which do not clearly specify the provisions of the Convention to which they apply and the extent of the derogation therefrom, contribute to undermining the basis of international treaty law. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid general reservation made by the Government of Saudi Arabia to the [said Convention]. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Saudi Arabia and Sweden. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without Saudi Arabia benefiting from this reservation."
14 January 2003
With regard to declarations made by Turkey upon ratification: The Government of Sweden has examined the declarations made by Turkey upon ratifying the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Paragraph 1 of the declaration states that Turkey will implement the provisions of the Convention only to the States Parties with which it has diplomatic relations. This statement in fact amounts, in the view of the Government of Sweden, to a reservation. The reservation makes it unclear to what extent the Turkey considers itself bound by the obligations of the Convention. In absence of further clarification, therefore, the reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of Turkey to the object and purpose of the Convention. It is in the common interest ofStates that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. According to article 20 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the convention shall not be permitted. The Government of Sweden objects to the said reservation made by the Government of Turkey to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Turkey and Sweden. The Convention enters into force in its entiretv between the two States, without Turkey benefiting from its reservation.
27 January 2004
With regard to the interpretative declaration made by Thailand upon ratification: "The Government of Sweden has examined the general interpretative declaration made by the Kingdom of Thailand upon acceding to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Government of Sweden recalls that the designation assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified does not determine its status as a reservation to the treaty. The Government of Sweden considers that the interpretative declaration made by the Kingdom of Thailand in substance constitutes a reservation. The Government of Sweden notes that the application of the Convention is being made subject to a general reservation referring to the confines of national legislation, without specifying its contents. Such a reservation makes it unclear to what extent the reserving state considers itself bound by the obligations of the Convention. The reservation made by the Kingdom of Thailand therefore raises doubts as to the commitment of the Kingdom of Thailand to the object and purpose of the Convention. In addition, according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party to a treaty may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to abide by the treaty. It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become parties are respected as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties. According to customary law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Kingdom of Thailand to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Thailand and Sweden. The Convention enters into force between the two States, without the Kingdom of Thailand benefitting from this reservation."
Ukraine
17 January 1984
26 June 2003
With regard to the declaration made by Turkey upon ratification: "The Government of the United Kingdom have examined the declaration made by the Government of the Republic of Turkey to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (New York, 7 March 1966) on 16 September 2002 in respect of implementation of the provisions of the Convention only to the States Parties with which it has diplomatic relations. In the view of the Government of the United Kingdom, this declaration amounts to a reservation. This reservation creates uncertainty as to the States Parties in respect of which Turkey is undertaking the obligations in the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore object to the reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Turkey. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Turkey."
With regard to the interpretative declaration made by Thailand upon accession: "The Government of the United Kingdom have examined the interpretative declaration made by the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (New York, 7 March 1966) on 28 January 2003 in respect of the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand having no obligation to interpret and apply the provisions of the Convention beyond the confines of the Constitution and the laws of the Kingdom of Thailand and, in addition, that the interpretation and application shall be limited to or consistent with the obligations under other international human rights instruments to which the Kingdom of Thailand is party. In the view of the Government of the United Kingdom, this declaration amounts to a reservation. This reservation amounts to a general reference to national law without specifying its contents and does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which the declaring State has accepted the obligations of the Convention. The Government of the United Kingdom therefore object to the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Thailand."
9 August 2013
With regard to the declaration made by Grenada upon ratification: “The Government of the United Kingdom has examined the Declaration made by Grenada. In the view of the United Kingdom, the Declaration amounts to a reservation. The Declaration makes only a general reference to national law without specifying its contents and does not clearly define for the other States Parties to the Convention the extent to which Grenada has accepted the obligations of the Convention. The United Kingdom therefore objects to the reservation made by Grenada in its Declaration and hereby gives notice that it does not accept it. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Grenada.”
Viet Nam
29 February 1984
Algeria
12 September 1989
Andorra
22 September 2006
Argentina
5 February 2007
28 January 1993
20 February 2002
Azerbaijan
27 September 2001
10 October 2000
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
14 February 2006
Brazil
17 June 2002
Bulgaria
12 May 1993
Chile
18 May 1994
Costa Rica
8 January 1974
30 December 1993
Czech Republic
11 October 2000
11 October 1985
Ecuador
18 March 1977
El Salvador
23 March 2016
Estonia
21 July 2010
16 November 1994
16 August 1982
Georgia
30 June 2005
Germany
30 August 2001
Hungary
13 September 1989
Iceland
10 August 1981
5 May 1978
Kazakhstan
29 May 2008
Liechtenstein
18 March 2004
Luxembourg
22 July 1996
16 December 1998
15 March 2002
6 November 2001
Confirmed upon succession :
19 October 2006
North Macedonia
22 December 1999
23 January 1976
Panama
7 May 2015
Peru
27 November 1984
Poland
1 December 1998
Portugal
2 March 2000
Republic of Moldova
8 May 2013
6 March 2014
[T]he Government decides:
21 March 2003
1 October 1991
San Marino
22 February 2008
Senegal
3 December 1982
Slovakia
17 March 1995
Slovenia
10 November 2001
South Africa
13 January 1998
State of Palestine
8 August 2019
19 June 2003
Togo
9 January 2015
28 July 1992
Uruguay
11 September 1972
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
22 September 2003
Article 19 of the Convention provides that the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the twenty-seventh instrument of ratification or instrument of accession. On 5 December 1968, the Government of Poland deposited the twenty-seventh instrument. However, among those instruments there were some which contained a reservation and therefore were subject to the provisions of article 20 of the Convention allowing States to notify objections within ninety days from the date of circulation by the Secretary-General of the reservations. In respect of two such instruments, namely those of Kuwait and Spain, the ninety-day period had not yet expired on the date of deposit of the twenty-seventh instrument. The reservation contained in one further instrument, that of India, had not yet been circulated on that date, and the twenty-seventh instrument itself, that of Poland, contained a reservation; in respect of these two instruments the ninety-day period would only begin to run on the date of the Secretary-General's notification of their deposit. Therefore, in that notification, which was dated 13 December 1968, the Secretary-General called the attention of the interested States to the situation and stated the following:
"It appears from the provisions of article 20 of the Convention that it would not be possible to determine the legal effect of the four instruments in question pending the expiry of the respective periods of time mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Having regard to the above-mentioned consideration, the Secretary-General is not at the present time in a position to ascertain the date of entry into force of the Convention."
Subsequently, in a notification dated 17 March 1969, the Secretary-General informed the interested States; (a) that within the period of ninety days from the date of his previous notification he had received an objection from one State to the reservation contained in the instrument of ratification by the Government of India; and (b) that the Convention, in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 19, had entered into force on 4 January 1969, i.e., on the thirtieth day after the date of deposit of the instrument of ratification of the Convention by the Government of Poland, which was the twenty-seventh instrument of ratification or instrument of accession deposited with the Secretary-General.
Official Records of the General Assembly, Twentieth Session, Supplement No. 14 (A/6014),p. 47.
The German Democratic Republic had acceded to the Convention on 23 March 1973 with a reservation and a declaration. For the text of the reservation and declaration, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 883, p. 190.
Moreover, on 26 April 1984, the Government of the German Democratic Republic had made an objection with regard to the ratification made by the Government of the Democratic Kampuchea. For the text of the objection, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 1355, p. 327.
See also note 2 under “Germany” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
The former Yugoslavia had signed and ratified the Convention on 15 April 1966 and 2 October 1967, 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 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.
In addition, the notification made by the Government of China contained the following declarations:
1. ...
2. The reservation of the People's Republic of China on behalf of the the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region interprets the requirement in article 6 concerning "reparation and satisfaction" as being fulfilled if one or other of these forms of redress is made available and interprets "satisfaction" as including any form of redress effective to bring the discriminatory conduct to an end.
The Convention had previously been signed and ratified on behalf of the Republic of China on 31 March 1966 and 10 December 1970, respectively. See also note 1 under "China" in the "Historical Information" (click on the tab "Status of Treaties" and then on "Historical Information").
With reference to the above-mentioned signature and/or ratification, communications have been received by the Secretary-General from the Governments of Bulgaria (12 March 1971), Mongolia (11 January 1971), the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (9 June 1971), the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (21 April 1971) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (18 January 1971) stating that they considered the said signature and/or ratification as null and void, since the so-called "Government of China" had no right to speak or assume obligations on behalf of China, there being only one Chinese State, the People's Republic of China, and one Government entitled to represent it, the Government of the People's Republic of China.
In letters addressed to the Secretary-General in regard to the above-mentioned communications, the Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations stated that the Republic of China, a sovereign State and Member of the United Nations, had attended the twentieth regular session of the United Nations General Assembly, contributed to the formulation of the Convention concerned, signed the Convention and duly deposited the instrument of ratification thereof, and that "any statements and reservations relating to the above-mentioned Convention that are incompatible with or derogatory to the legitimate position of the Government of the Republic of China shall in no way affect the rights and obligations of the Republic of China under this Convention".
Finally, upon depositing its instrument of accession, the Government of the People's Republic of China made the following declaration: The signing and ratification of the said Convention by the Taiwan authorities in the name of China are illegal and null and void.
On 27 April 1999, the Government of Portugal informed the Secretary-General that the Convention would apply to Macao.
Subsequently, the Secretary-General received communications concerning the status of Macao from Portugal and China (see note 3 under “China” and note 1 under “Portgual” 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 with the reservation made by China will also apply to the Macao Special Administrative Region.
The Convention had previously been signed and ratified on behalf of the Republic of China on 31 March 1966 and 10 December 1970, respectively. See also note 1 under "China" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.
With reference to the above-mentioned signature and/or ratification, communications have been received by the Secretary-General from the Governments of Bulgaria (12 march 1971), Mongolia (11 January 1971), the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (9 June 1971), the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (21 April 1971) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (18 January 1971) stating that they considered the said signature and/or ratification as null and void, since the so-called "Government of China" had no right to speak or assume obligations on behalf of China, there being only one Chinese State, the People's Republic of China, and one Government entitled to represent it, the Government of the People's Republic of China.
In letters addressed to teh Secretary-General in regard to the above-mentioned communications, the Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations stated that the Republic of China, a sovereign State and Member of the United Nations, had attended the twentieth regular session of hte United Nations General Assembly, contributed to the formulation of the Convention concerned, signed the Convention and duly deposited the instrument of ratification thereof, and that "any statements and reservations relating to the abocve-mentioned Convention that are incmopatible with or derogatory to the legitimate position of the Government of the Republic of China shall in no wa affect the rights and obligations of the Republic of China under this Convention".
Czechoslovakia had signed and ratified the Convention on 7 October 1966 and 29 December 1966, respectively, with reservations. Subsequently, on 12 March 1984, the Government of Czechoslovakia made an objection to the ratification by Democratic Kampuchea. Further, 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 22 made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification. For the text of the reservations and the objection, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 660, p. 276 and vol. 1350, p. 386, respectively. See also note 14 in this chapter and note 1 under “Czech Republic” and note 1 under “Slovakia” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
In a communication received on 4 October 1972, the Government of Denmark notified the Secretary-General that it withdrew the reservation made with regard to the implementation on the Faroe Islands of the Convention. For the text of the reservation see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 820, p. 457.
The legislation by which the Convention has been implemented on the Faroe Islands entered into force by 1 November 1972, from which date the withdrawal of the above reservation became effective.
See note 1 under “Germany” regarding Berlin (West) in the “Historical Information” section (click on the tab "Status of Treaties" and then on "Historical Information").
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 “Namibia” 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 in the preliminary pages in the front matter of this volume.
On 7 October 2016, the Government of Thailand notified the Secretary-General of the withdrawal of the reservation to article 4 made upon accession to the Convention. The text of the reservation read as follows:
"The Kingdom of Thailand interprets Article 4 of the Convention as requiring a party to the Convention to adopt measures in the fields covered by subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only where it is considered that the need arises to enact such legislation."
In its instrument of ratification, the Government of the United Kingdom specified that the ratification also applied to the following territories: Associated States (Antigua, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Christopher Nevis Anguilla and Saint Lucia) and Territories under the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom, as well as the State of Brunei, the Kingdom of Tonga and the British Solomon Islands Protectorate.
The Yemen Arab Republic had acceded to the Convention on 6 April 1989 with the following reservation:
Reservations in respect of article 5 (c) and article 5 (d) (iv), (vi) and (vii).
In this regard, the Secretary-General received on 30 April 1990, from the Government of Czechoslovakia the following objection:
"The Czech and Slovak Federal Republic considers the reservations of the Government of Yemen with respect to article 5 (c) and articles 5 (d) (iv), (vi), and (vii) of [the Convention], as incompatible with the object and purpose of this Convention."
See also note 1 under “Yemen” in the “Historical Information” (click on the tab "Status of Treaties" and then on "Historical Information").
In a communication received by the Secretary-General on 10 July 1969, the Government of Israel declared:
"[The Government of Israel] has noted the political character of the declaration made by the Government of Iraq on signing the above Convention.
In the view of the Government of Israel, the Convention is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Iraq an attitude of complete reciprocity. Moreover, it is the view of the Government of Israel that no legal relevance can be attached to those Iraqi statements which purport to represent the views of the other States".
Except for the omission of the last sentence, identical communica- tions in essence, mutatis mutandis , were received by the Secretary-General from the Government of Israel as follows: on 29 December 1966 in respect of the declaration made by the Government of the United Arab Republic upon signature (see also note 17); on 16 August 1968 in respect of the declaration made by the Government of Libya upon accession; on 12 December 1968 in respect of the declaration made by the Government of Kuwait upon accession; on 9 July 1969 in respect of the declaration made by the Government of Syria upon accession; on 21 April 1970 made in respect of the declaration made by Government of Iraq upon ratification with the following statement: "With regard to the political declaration in the guise of a reservation made on the occasion of the ratification of the above Treaty, the Government of Israel wishes to refer to its objection circulated by the Secretary-General in his letter [. . .] and to maintain that objection."; on 12 February 1973 in respect of the declaration made by the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen upon accession; on 25 September 1974 in respect of the declaration made by the United Arab Emirates upon accession and on 25 June 1990 in rthe reservation made by Bahrain upon accession.
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, the Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, respectively, notified the Secretary-General that they had decided to withdraw the reservations relating to article 22. For the texts of the reservations, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 676, p. 397, vol. 81, p. 392 and vol.77, p. 435.
On 24 June 1992, the Government of Bulgaria notified the Secretary-General its decision to withdraw the reservation to article 22 made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 60, p. 270.
None of the States concerned having objected to the reservation by the end of a period of ninety days after the date when it was circulated by the Secretary-General, the said reservation is deemed to have been permitted in accordance with the provisions of article 20 (1).
In a notification received on 18 January 1980, the Government of Egypt informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the declaration it had made in respect of Israel. For the text of the declaration see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 60, p. 318. The notification indicates 25 January 1980 as the effective date of the withdrawal.
In a communication received in 10 August 2012, the Government of Fiji notified the Secretary-General of the withdrawal of the reservations and declarations made upon sucession to the Convention. The text of the reservations and declarations read as follows:
The reservation and declarations formulated by the Government of the United Kingdom on behalf of Fiji are affirmed but have been redrafted in the following terms:
"To the extent, if any, that any law relating to elections in Fiji may not fulfil the obligations referred to in article 5 (c), that any law relating to land in Fiji which prohibits or restricts the alienation of land by the indigenous inhabitants may not fulfil the obligations referred to in article 5 (d) (v), or that the school system of Fiji may not fulfil the obligations referred to in articles 2, 3, or 5 (e) (v), the Government of Fiji reserves the right not to implement the aforementioned provisions of the Convention.
"The Government of Fiji wishes to state its understanding of certain articles in the Convention. It interprets article 4 as requiring a party to the Convention to adopt further legislative measures in the fields covered by sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that article only in so far as it may consider with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of the Convention (in particular the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association) that some legislative addition to or variation of existing law and practice in those fields is necessary for the attainment of the end specified in the earlier part of Article 4.
Further, the Government of Fiji interprets the requirement in article 6 concerning `reparation or satisfaction' as being fulfilled if one or other of these forms of redress is made available and interprets `satisfaction' as including any form of redress effective to bring the discriminatory conduct to an and. In addition it interprets article 20 and the other related provisions of Part III of the Convention as meaning that if a reservation is not accepted the State making the reservation does not become a Party to the Convention.
"The Government of Fiji maintains the view that Article 15 is discriminatory in that it establishes a procedure for the receipt of petitions relating to dependent territories whilst making no comparable provision for States without such territories."
In a communication received subsequently, the Government of France indicated that the first paragraph of the declaration did not purport to limit the obligations under the Convention in respect of the French Government, but only to record the latter's interpretation of article 4 of the Convention.
The Secretary-General received on 7 August 2013 the following communication from the Government of the French Republic:
The Government of the French Republic has examined the declaration formulated by the Government of Grenada at the time of the deposit of its instrument of ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 7 March 1966. The Government of the French Republic takes note of this ratification. It regrets, however, that the declaration made by Grenada, which constitutes a reservation, gives rise to a restriction on the international obligations accepted by Grenada under the Convention and to legal uncertainty. The reservation has indeed a general and indeterminate scope, since its aim is to subordinate the implementation of Grenada’s obligations under the Convention to respect for its domestic law, with no indication of which provisions are concerned. The States Parties to the Convention cannot, therefore, assess the scope of the reservation. By the present declaration, however, the Government of the French Republic does not oppose Grenada becoming a party to the Convention.
In a communication received on 13 September 1989, the Government of Hungary notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservation in respect to article 22 of the Convention made upon ratification. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 60, p. 310.
In a communication received on 24 February 1969, the Government of Pakistan notified the Secretary-General that it "has decided not to accept the reservation made by the Government of India in her instrument of ratification".
In a communication received on 19 July 1990, the Government of Mongolia notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation concerning article 22 made upon ratification. For the text of the reservation see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 60, p. 289.
On 16 October 1997, the Government of Poland notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation with regard to article 22 of the Convention made upon ratification. For the text of the reservation see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 660, p. 195.
On 19 August 1998, the Government of Romania notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation made with regard to article 22 of the Convention made upon accession. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 763, p. 362.
In a communication received in 15 December 2008, the Government of Rwanda notified the Secretary-General of the withdrawal of the reservation 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 22 of the Convention.
On 22 October 1999, the Government of Spain informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation in respect of article XXII made upon accession. For the texte of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 660, p. 316.
By a notification received on 28 October 1977, the Government of Tonga informed the Secretary-General that it has decided to withdraw only those reservations made upon accession relating to article 5 (c) in so far as it relates to elections, and reservations relating to articles 2, 3 and 5 (e) (v), in so far as these articles relate to education and training. For the text of the original reservation see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 829, p. 371.
The first ten declarations recognizing the competence of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination took effect on 3 December 1982, date of the deposit of the tenth declaration, according to article 14, paragraph 1 of the Convention.