Home Page

Algeria

Reservation:

       The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 24, paragraph 1, of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

       The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria declares that in order for a dispute to be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice, the agreement of all parties to the dispute shall be required in each case.

Andorra

Reservation:

       The Principality of Andorra does not consider itself bound by article 24, paragraph 1, of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. The Government of the Principality of Andorra hereby declares that, for a dispute to be referred to the International Court of Justice, the agreement of all parties shall in every case be required.

Argentina

Declaration:

       In accordance with the provisions of article 24, paragraph 2, the Argentine Republic declares that it does not consider itself bound by article 24, paragraph 1, and consequently does not accept mandatory recourse to arbitration or to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

Bahamas

Declaration:

       "In accordance with article 2.2 of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Government of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas declares that it is not a party to the Agreements listed as items 5 to 9 in the annex referred to in paragraph 1, subparagraph (a) of the Convention and that those Agreements shall be deemed not to be included in the annex referred to in paragraph 1, subparagraph (a).  Those Agreements are:

       Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 3rd March, 1980.

       Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal on 24th February, 1988.

       Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10th March, 1988.

       Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome, on 10th March, 1988.

       International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15th December, 1997."

Bahrain

Reservation:

       The Kingdom of Bahrain does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 24 of the Convention.

Declaration:

       The following Conventions shall be deemed not to be included in the annex referred to in Article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a), since Bahrain is not a party thereto:

       1.  Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 December 1973.

       2.  International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 17 December 1979.

       3.  Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, signed at Vienna on 3 March 1980.

       4.  Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.

       5.  Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.

       6.  International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997.

Bangladesh

Reservation:

       "Pursuant to Article 24, paragraph 2 of the Convention [the] Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 24, paragraph 1 of the Convention."

Understanding:

       "[The] Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh understands that its accession to this Convention shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with its international obligations under the Constitution of the country."

Belgium1,11

Declaration :

       I.  Concerning article 2, paragraph 2 (a), of the Convention, the Government of Belgium declares the following:

       The following treaties are to be deemed not to be included in the annex:

       Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 December 1973;

       Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (Rome, 10 March 1988);

       Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf (Rome, 10 March 1988);

       International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997.

       II. The Government of Belgium interprets paragraphs 1 and 3 of article 2 as follows: an offence in the sense of the Convention is committed by any person who provides or collects funds if by doing so he contributes, fully or partly, to the planning, preparation or commission of an offence as defined in article 2, paragraph 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention.  There is no requirement to prove that the funds provided or collected have been used precisely for a particular terrorist act, provided that they have contributed to the criminal activities of persons whose goal was to commit the acts set forth in article 2, paragraph 1 (a) and (b).

       [.....]

Brazil12

Upon signature:

       Interpretative declarations:

       “Interpretative Declarations to be made by the Federal Republic of Brazil on the occasion of signing of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism:

       1.   As concerns Article 2 of the said Convention, three of the legal instruments listed in the Annex to the Convention have not come into force in Brazil. These are the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation; Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf; and the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.

       2.    As concerns Article 24, paragraph 2 of the said Convention, Brazil does not consider itself obligated by paragraph 1 of the said Article, given that it has not recognized the mandatory jurisdiction clause of the International Court of Justice."

China

Reservation and declaration:

       1.     The People's Republic of China shall not be bound by paragraph 1 of article 24 of the Convention.

       [...]

       3. As to the Macao Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, the following three Conventions shall not be included in the annex referred to in Article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a) of the Convention:

       (1) Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 3 March 1980.

       (2) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.

       (3) Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.

Colombia

Declaration:

       By virtue of article 24, paragraph 2, of the Convention, Colombia declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of the said article.

       Furthermore, by virtue of article 7, paragraph 3, of the Convention, Colombia states that it establishes its jurisdiction in accordance with its domestic law in accordance with paragraph 2 of the same article.

Cook Islands

Declaration:

       "In accordance with the provisions of article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (a) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Government of the Cook Islands declares:

       That in the application of this Convention, the treaties listed in the annex, referred to in article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a) shall be deemed not to be included, given that the Cook Islands is not yet a party to the following Conventions:

       (i) Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 3 March 1980;

       (ii) Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal on 24 February 1988;

       (iii) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988;

       (iv) Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988;

       (v) International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997."

Croatia

Declaration:

       "The Republic of Croatia, pursuant to Article 2 paragraph 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, declares that in the application of the Convention to the Republic of Croatia the following treaties shall be deemed not to be included in the Annex referred to in Article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a) of the Convention:

       1.  International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 17 December 1979,

       2.  Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988,

       3.  Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988,

       4.  International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997."

Cuba

Reservation:

       The Republic of Cuba declares, pursuant to article 24, paragraph 2, that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of the said article, concerning the settlement of disputes arising between States Parties, inasmuch as it considers that such disputes must be settled through amicable negotiation.  In consequence, it declares that it does not recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea13

Upon signature:

       Reservations:

       1. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 2, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (a) of the Convention.

       2. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 14 of the Convention.

       3. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 24, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Upon Ratification:

       Reservations:

       1. The reservation relating to Article 2, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (a) of the Convention shall be amended to read as ‘The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea does not consider itself bound by the treaties to which it is not a party among the treaties listed in the Annex of the Convention.’

       2. The reservation relating to Article 14 of the Convention shall be withdrawn.

       3. The reservation relating to Article 24, paragraph 1 of the Convention shall remain valid.

Egypt14

Reservations and declaration:

       1. Under article 2, paragraph 2 (a), of the Convention, the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt considers that, in the application of the Convention, conventions to which it is not a party are deemed not included in the annex.

       2. Under article 24, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of that article.

Explanatory declaration:

       Without prejudice to the principles and norms of general international law and the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Arab Republic of Egypt does not consider acts of national resistance in all its forms, including armed resistance against foreign occupation and aggression with a view to liberation and self-determination, as terrorist acts within the meaning of article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (b), of the Convention.

El Salvador

Declarations:

       (1) Pursuant to article 2, paragraph 2 (a), the Republic of El Salvador declares that in the application of this Convention, the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted in Vienna on 3 March 1980, shall not be considered as having been included in the annex referred to in article 2, paragraph 1 (a), since El Salvador is not currently a State party thereto;

       ...

       (3) pursuant to article 24, paragraph 2, the Republic of El Salvador declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of that article, because it does not recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice; and

       (4) El Salvador accedes to this Convention on the understanding that such accession is without prejudice to any provisions thereof which may conflict with the principles expressed in its Constitution and domestic legal system.

Ethiopia

Reservation:

       “Ethiopia does not consider itself to be bound by the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as per Article 24 (2) of the Convention.”

Declaration:

       “Pursuant to Article 2 (2) (a) of the Convention, the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials which has been adopted in Vienna on 3 March 1980 and annexed to the [International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism], shall not apply in Ethiopia.”

France

Declarations:

       Declaration pursuant to article 2, paragraph 2 (a)

       In accordance with article 2, paragraph 2 (a) of this Convention, France declares that in the application of the Convention to France, the Convention of 14 December 1973 on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, shall be deemed not to be included in the annex referred to in article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a), since France is not a party thereto.

Georgia

Declaration:

       “In accordance with article 2.2, Georgia declares, that while applying this Convention, treaties to which Georgia is not contracting party shall not be considered as included in the annex to this Convention.”

Guatemala

Declaration:

       Pursuant to article 2, paragraph 2 (a) of the Convention referred to in the preceding article, the State of Guatemala, in ratifying the Convention, makes the following declaration: "In the application of this Convention, Guatemala deems the following treaties not to be included in the annex: the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, signed at Rome on 10 March 1988; the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988 and the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997. The declaration shall cease to have effect, for each of the treaties indicated, as soon as the treaty enters into force for the State of Guatemala, which shall notify the depositary of this fact.

6 June 2002

Declaration under article 2 (2) (a):

       [The Government of Guatemala notifies,]...pursuant to article 2, paragraph 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, that on 14 March 2002  [should read: 10 April 2002] , the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings entered into force for the Republic of Guatemala. Accordingly, the declaration made by the Republic of Guatemala at the time of depositing its instrument of ratification that the latter Convention was deemed not to be included in the annex to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism has ceased to have effect.

Holy See

Reservation

       “Pursuant to article 24.2 of the Convention, the Holy See, acting also in the name and on behalf of Vatican City State, declares that it does not consider itself bound by article 24.1 of the Convention.  The Holy See, acting also in the name and on behalf of Vatican City State, specifically reserves the right to agree in a particular case, on an ad hoc basis, to any convenient means to settle any dispute arising out of this Convention.”

Declarations

       “By acceding to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Holy See, acting also in the name and on behalf of Vatican City State, intends to contribute and to give its moral support to the global prevention, repression and prosecution of terrorism and to the protection of victims of such crimes.

       In conformity with its own nature, its mission, and the particular character of Vatican City State, the Holy See upholds the values of brotherhood, justice and peace between persons and peoples, whose protection and strengthening require the primacy of the rule of law and respect for human rights, and it reaffirms that instruments of criminal and judicial cooperation constitute effective safeguards in the face of criminal activities that jeopardize human dignity and peace.

       The Holy See, acting also in the name and on behalf of the Vatican City State, declares that its accession to the Convention does not constitute consent to be bound by or to become a party to any of the treaties listed in the Annex to the Convention.  Considering that, at the date of its accession to the Convention, the Holy See is not a party to any of the treaties listed in the Annex, for the purposes of article 2.2(a) of the Convention, none of them should be deemed to beincluded within the scope of the Convention pursuant to its article 2.1(a).  In the future, should the Holy See ratify or acceded to any of those treaties, once it has come into force for the Holy See, the treaty in question shall be deemed to be included within the scope of the Convention pursuant to its article 2.1(a).

       In respect to article 5 of the Convention, the Holy See notes that, due to the particular nature of the Holy See and of Vatican City State, the concept of criminal liability of legal persons is not embodied in their domestic legal principles.

       Pursuant to article 11.2 of the Convention, the Holy See declares that it takes the Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other Parties to the Convention, subject to the limitations to the extradition of persons provided for by its domestic law.

        With regard to article 15 of the Convention, the Holy See declares that the terms ‘prosecuting or punishing a person on account of that person’s race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin or political opinion’ and ‘prejudice to that person’s position’ shall be interpreted in light of its legal doctrine and the sources of its law (Vatican City State Law LXXI, 1 October 2008).”

26 September 2012

Declaration:

       “Pursuant to the last sentence of article 2.2(a) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, of 9 December 1999, the Holy See, acting also in the name and on behalf of Vatican City State, declares that, from the moment the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, enters into force for the Holy See, it shall be deemed to be included within the scope of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism pursuant to its article 2.1(a).”

Indonesia

Declaration:

       "A. In accordance with Article 2 paragraph 2 subparagraph (a) of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Government of the Republic of Indonesia declares that the following treaties are to be deemed not to be included in the Annex referred to in Article 2 paragraph 1 subparagraph (a) of the Convention:

       1. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 December 1973.

       2. International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 17 December 1979.

       3. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal on 24 February 1988.

       4. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.

       5. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.

       B. The Government of the Republic of Indonesia declares that the provisions of Article 7 of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism will have to be implemented in strict compliance with the principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States. "

Reservation:

       The Government of the Republic of Indonesia, while signatory to the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, does not consider itself bound by the provision of Article 24 and takes the position that dispute relating to the interpretation and application on the Convention which cannot be settled through the channel provided for in paragraph (1) of the said Article, may be referred to the International Court of Justice only wit the consent of all the Parties to the dispute."

Israel16

       "... with the following declarations:

       Pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 2 (a) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Government of the State of Israel declares that in the application of the Convention the treaties to which the state of Israel is not a party shall be deemed not to be included in the Annex of the Convention.

       ...

       Pursuant to Article 24, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the State of Israel does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 24, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

       The Government of the State of Israel understands that the term "international humanitarian law" referred to in Article 21 of the Convention has the same substantial meaning as the term "the law of war".  This body of laws does not include the provisions of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Convention of 1977 to which the State of Israel is not a party."

Japan

18 June 2010

Declaration:

       “The Government of Japan has carefully examined the declaration described as a reservation, relating to Article 14 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, opened for signature at the United Nations Headquarters in New York on 10 January 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”), made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan when acceding to the Convention.

       The Government of Japan considers that, if the Islamic Republic of Pakistan purported to exclude or to limit the legal effect of the provision of the said Article in its application to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and thereby not to implement the obligation of the country under the said Article, the aforesaid declaration would amount to a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

       The Government of Japan recalls that such reservation shall not be permitted under established rules of international law.

       The Government of Japan thus considers the aforesaid declaration made by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to have no effect on the application of the Convention, including Article 14, between the two countries.”

Jordan17

Declarations:

       “1. The Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan does not consider acts of national armed struggle and fighting foreign occupation in the exercise of people’s right to self-determation as terrorist acts within the context of paragraph 1(b) of article 2 of the Convention.

       2. Jordan is not a party to the following treaties:

       A. Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted in Vienna on 3 March 1980.

       B. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.

       C. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Contiental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.

       D. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted in New York on 15 December 1997.

       Accordingly Jordan is not bound to include, in the application of the International Covention for the Supresssion of the Financing of Terrorism, the offences within the scope and as defined in such Treaties.”

Kazakhstan18

23 July 2009

Reservation:

       The Republic of Kazakhstan does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 24, paragraph 1 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

Kuwait4

Reservation:

       Availing itself of article 24, paragraph 2, the State of Kuwait shall not be bound by the provisions of article 24, paragraph 1.

Latvia

Declaration:

       "In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted at New York on the 9th day of December 1999, the Republic of Latvia declares that in the application of the Convention to the Republic of Latvia the following treaties shall be deemed not to be included in the annex referred to in Article 2 paragraph 1, subparagraph (a) of the Convention:

       1 . International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 17 December 1979.

       2. Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 3 March 1980.

       3. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.

       4. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988. 5. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997."

20 March 2003

       "In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted at New York on the 9th day of December 1999, the Republic of Latvia notifies that the following treaties have entered into force for the Republic of Latvia:

       1.  International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 17 December 1979,

       2.  Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 3 March 1980,

       3.  Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988,

       4.  Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988; and

       5.  International Convention for the Suppression oferrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997."

Lebanon

Reservation and Statement:

       … with a reservation regarding the definition of terrorism set forth in Article 2, paragraph 1 (b) of that Convention and an endorsement of the definition of terrorism set forth in articles 1 and 2 of the Arab counter-Terrorism Convention signed in Cairo on 22 April 1984.

Lithuania

Reservation and declaration:

       ".....it is provided in paragrah 2 of Article 24 of the said Convention, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania declares that the Republic of Lithuania does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 24 of the Convention stipulating that any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall be referred to the International Court of Justice.

       .....it is provided in subparagraph a) of paragraph 2 of the said Convention, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania declares that in the application of this Convention to the Republic of Lithuania, the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted on 15 December 1997, shall be deemed not to be included in the annex referred to in subparagraph a) of paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Convention.”

Luxembourg

Declaration:

       Pursuant to article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (a), of the Convention, Luxembourg declares that when the Convention is applied to it, the treaties listed in the annex which have not yet been ratified by Luxembourg shall be deemed not to appear in the annex.

       As at the date of ratification of the Convention, the following treaties listed in the annex had been ratified by Luxembourg:

       Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, done at The Hague, on 16 December 1970;

       Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal, on 23 September 1971;

       International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, on 17 December 1979;

       Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted in Vienna on 3 March 1980.

Mauritius

Declarations:

       "(1) in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (a) of the said Convention, the Government of the Republic of Mauritius declares that in the application of this Convention to the Republic of Mauritius, the following treaty shall be deemed not to be included in the annex referred to in Article 2 [paragraph 1 subparagraph (a)] of the said Convention, since the Republic of Mauritius is not yet a party thereto -

       (1) The International Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials:

       (ii) In accordance with Article 24(2) of the said Convention, the Government of the Republic of Mauritius does not consider itself bound by Article 24 (1).  The Government of the Republic of Mauritius considers that any dispute may be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the consent of all the Parties to the dispute."

Mozambique

Declaration:

       “... with the following declaration in accordance with its article 24, paragraph 2:

       "The Republic of Mozambique does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 24 paragraph 1 of the Convention.

       In this connection the Republic of Mozambique states that, in the each individual case, the consent of all Parties to such a dispute is necessary for the submission of the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.”

       Furthermore, the Republic of Mozambique declare that:

       “The Republic of Mozambique, in accordance with its Constitution and domestic laws, may not and will not extradite Mozambique citizens.

       Therefore, Mozambique citizens will be tried and sentenced in national courts".

Myanmar19

Upon signature:

       Reservation:

       “The Government of the Union of Myanmar declares in pursuance of Article 24, paragraph (2) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 24, Paragraph (1).”

Upon ratification:

       Reservations:

       "Regarding article 24 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Union of Myanmar declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of the article 24 of the said Convention.

       Regarding the 9 Conventions mentioned in the Annex of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Union of Myanmar declares that it is yet to be a party to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 3 March 1980."

Namibia

Reservation:

       “That a struggle waged by people in accordance with the principles of international law for their liberation or self-determination, including armed struggle against colonialism, occupation, aggression and domination by foreign forces, shall not be considered as terrorist acts.”

Nepal

Reservation

       “Nepal hereby declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provision of paragraph 1 of Article 24 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.”

Declaration in regard to article 2, paragraph 2 (a)

       “[The] Government of Nepal declares that as Nepal is not a party to the following Conventions referred to in Annex to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of such conventions until Nepal becomes a party:

       1.   Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 3 March 1980.

       2.   Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal on 24 February 1988.

       3.   Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.

       4.   Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.

       5.   International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997.”

Notification:

       “Nepal has acceded to the ‘International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 1999’ on 24 June 2011 according to the National Law.  While presenting the proposal for accession to the said Convention in the Legislature Parliament, the Government of Nepal clarified the  meaning of the word ‘Terrorism’ as mentioned in the ‘International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 1999’ that ‘any acts which are related to political activities will not be considered as the acts of Terrorism’.”

Netherlands (Kingdom of the)

Declaration:

       "The Kingdom of the Netherlands understands Article 10, paragraph 1, of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism to include the right of the competent judicial authorities to decide not to prosecute a person alleged to have committed such an offence, if, in the opinion of the competent judicial authorities grave considerations of procedural law indicate that effective prosecution will be impossible."

1 May 2002

With regard to the reservations made by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea upon signature:

       "The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservations made by the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea regarding article 2, paragraph 1 (a), and article 14 of the International Convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism made at the time of its signature of the said Convention.

       The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the reservations made by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea regarding article 2, paragraph 1 (a), and article 14 of the Convention are reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

       The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

       It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party 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 the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to the International Convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism.

       This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea."

21 April 2004

With regard to the declaration made by Jordan upon ratification:

       ".....the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the Declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Teorism made by the Government of Jordan at the time of its ratification of the Convention.  The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the declaration made by Jordan is in fact a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and which is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place or who carries them out.

       The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands further considers the Declaration to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to "adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature".

       The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

       It is in the common interest of the States that treaties to which they have chosen to become party 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 the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Jordan to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.  This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Jordan."

20 May 2005

With regard to the reservation made by Belgium upon ratification:

       "The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the reservation made by the Government of Belgium regarding Article 14 of the International Convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism made at the time of its ratification of the Convention.

       The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands notes that the reservation made by the Government of Belgium is expressed to apply only "in exceptional circumstances"and that, notwithstanding the application of the reservation, Belgium continues to be bound by the general legal principle of aut dedere aut judicare.  The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands further notes that the exceptional circumstances that are envisaged in paragraph 1 of the reservation made by the Government of Belgium are not specified in the reservation.

       The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the offences set forth in Article 2 of the Convention to be of such grave nature, that the provisions of Article 14 should apply in all circumstances.

       Furthermore the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls the principle that claims of political motivation must not be recognised as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists.

       The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of Belgium to the International Convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism.

       This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, without Belgium benefiting from its reservation."

30 August 2005

With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:

       "The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the declaration made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon ratification of the Convention relating to Article 2 paragraph 1 (b) thereof.  It is of the opinion that this declaration amounts to a reservation, since its purpose is to unilaterally limit the scope of the Convention.  The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is furthermore of the opinion that the declaration is in contradiction to the object and purpose of the Convention, in particular the object of suppressing the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be committed.

       The declaration is further contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

       The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a convention are not permissible.

       The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects tothe above-mentioned declaration by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.  This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Arab Republic of Egypt."

With regard to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:

       "The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon accession to the Convention relating to Article 2 paragraph 1 (b) thereof.  It is of the opinion that this reservation unilaterally limits the scope of the Convention and is in contradiction to the object and purpose of the Convention, in particular the object of suppressing the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be committed.

       The reservation is further contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

       The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a convention are not permissible.

       The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation by the Syrian Arab Republicto the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.  This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Syrian Arab Republic."

25 August 2006

With regard to the understanding made by Bangladesh upon accession:

       "The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has examined the declaration made by the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.  The People's Republic of Bangladesh has declared that its accession to the Convention shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with its international obligations under the Constitution of the country.  The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the opinion that this declaration raises questions as to which obligations the People's Republic of Bangladesh intends to give precedence to in the event of any inconsistency between the Convention and its Constitution.  Declarations that leave it uncertain to what extent a State consents to be bound by its contractual obligations are in the opinion of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to be treated, in effect, as general reservations, which are not compatible with the object and purpose of a Convention.

       The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the above-mentioned declaration made by the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.  This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the People's Republic of Bangladesh."

New Zealand

Declaration:

       "... AND DECLARES, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2 (a), of the Convention, that, in the application of the Convention to New Zealand, the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials adopted at Vienna on [3 March 1980] shall be deemed not to be included in the annex referred to in Article 2, paragraph 1 (a), as New Zealand is not yet a party to it; ...”

Nicaragua

Declaration:

       In accordance with the provisions of article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (a), of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Government of Nicaragua declares:

       That, in the application of this Convention, the treaties listed in the annex referred to in article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a), shall be deemed not to be included, given that Nicaragua is not yet a party to the following conventions:

       1. International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 17 December 1979.

       2. Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 3 March 1980.

       3. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.

       4. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.

North Macedonia

Declaration:

       "The following treaties are to be deemed not to be included in the annex:

       Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done on 10 March 1988;

       Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988."

Oman

Reservation:

       “In accordance with the provisions of article 24, paragraph 2, the Sultanate of Oman declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 24, paragraph 1, and consequently does not accept mandatory recourse to arbitration or to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.”

Pakistan

Reservations:

       “Article 11

       The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan declares that pursuant to Article 11 paragraph 2, of the Convention, it does not take this Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States Parties.

       Article 14

       Extradition to other countries shall be subject to the domestic laws of Pakistan.

       Article 24

       The Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not consider itself bound by Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. The Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan hereby declares that, for a dispute to be referred to the International Court of Justice, the agreement of all parties shall in every case be required.”

Philippines

Declaration:

       "... , in ratifying the Convention, the Philippines has to declare, as it hereby declares, that in the application of the Convention the following treaties to which it is not yet a party shall be deemed not included in the annex:

       (a)  Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation;

       (b)  Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation;

       (c)  Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf;

       (d)  International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.

       ... , this declaration shall cease to have effect upon entry into force of the said treaties with respect to the Philippines."

25 June 2004

       ".....pursuant to Article 2 (a) of the International Convention on the Financing of Terrorism, the Philippine Government has become State Party to the following international instruments:

       1. Protocol on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, entered into force for [the Republic of the Philippines] on 16 January 2004 ([Republic of Philippines] ratification deposited with the ICAO on 17 December 2003);

       2. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, entered into force for [the Republic of the Philippines] on 06 February 2004 ([Republic of the Philippines] ratification deposited with the UN Secretary-General on 07 January 2004);

       3. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, entered into force for [the Republic of the Philippines] on 05 April 2004 ( [Republic of the Philippines] ratification deposited with the IMO on 06 January 2004); and

       4. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, entered into force for [the Republic of the Philippines] on 05 April 2004 ( [Republic of the Philippines] ratification deposited with the IMO on 06 January 2004).

Qatar

       

Reservation:

       … with reservation regarding paragraph 1 of Article (24) concerning the submission of disputes to International Arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.

Republic of Moldova

Declaration and reservation:

       1.  Pursuant to article 2, paragraph 2 (a) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Republic of Moldova declares that in the application of the Convention the treaties the Republic of Moldova is not a party to shall be deemed not to be included in the Annex of the Convention.

       2.  Pursuant to article 24, paragraph 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Republic of Moldova declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 24, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Romania

Declaration:

       “In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (a) of the Convention, Romania declares that, on the date of the application of this Convention to Romania, the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism Bombings of 15 December 1997, shall be deemed not to be included in the annex referred to in Article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a)."

Saudi Arabia

Reservation and declaration:

       The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not consider itself bound by article 24, paragraph 1 of the Convention relating to the submission to arbitration of any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention, or their referral to the International Court of Justice should settlement by arbitration be impossible.

       The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material is not deemed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to be included in the annex referred to in article 2, paragraph 1 (a) of the Convention.

Singapore

Upon signature:

Reservation:

       "... the Government of the Republic of Singapore makes the following reservations in relation to Article 2 and Article 24 of the 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism:

       i) The Republic of Singapore declares, in pursuance of Article 2, paragraph 2 (a) of the Convention that in the application of this Convention, the treaty shall be deemed not to include the treaties listed in the annex of this Convention which the Republic of Singapore is not a party to.

       ii) The Republic of Singapore declares, in pursuance of Article 24, paragraph 2 of the Convention that it will not be bound by the provisions of Article 24 paragraph 1 of the Convention."

Upon ratification:

       “... [S]ubject to the following declarations and reservations:

Declarations and reservations:

       Declarations

       (1) The Republic of Singapore understands that Article 21 of the Convention clarifies that nothing in the Convention precludes the application of the law of armed conflict with regard to legitimate military objectives.

       Reservations

       (1) With respect to Article 2, paragraph 2 (a) of the Convention, the Republic of Singapore declares that the treaty shall be deemed not to include the treaties listed in the annex of this Convention which the Republic of Singapore is not a party to.

       (2) The Republic of Singapore declares, in pursuance of Article 24, paragraph 2 of the Convention that it will not be bound by the provisions of Article 24, paragraph 1 of the Convention.”

St. Lucia

Declaration:

       “In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (a) of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Government of Saint Lucia declares that in the application of this Convention to Saint Lucia, the following treaties shall be deemed not to be included in the Annex referred to in Article 2, paragraph 1 (a) of the Convention, as Saint Lucia is not a party to these treaties:

       1.Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 December 1973.

       2.International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 17 December 1979.

       3. Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 3 March 1980.

       4. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997.”

Reservation:

       “In accordance with Article 24, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the Government of Saint Lucia does not consider itself bound by the provision of Article 24, paragraph 1 of the Convention, and takes the position that any dispute may only be referred to the International Court of Justice with the consent of all the parties to the dispute.”

St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Declaration and Reservation:

       "In accordance with Article 2 paragraph 2 a) of the said Convention, however, the Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines declares that in the application of this Convention to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines the following treaties shall be deemed not to be included in the Annex referred to in its Article 2 paragraph 1(a):

       1.  Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 3 March 1980.

       2.   International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997.

       Further, in accordance with Article 24 paragraph 2 of the said Convention, the Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 24.  The Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines considers that any dispute may be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the consent of all the parties to the dispute."

Suriname

Declaration:

       "[I]n the application of the aforementioned Convention the following treaties listed in the Annex referred to in Article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph a, shall be deemed not to be included:

       Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 December 1973;

       Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 3 March 1980;

       Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988;

       Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988;

       International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997".

Syrian Arab Republic20

Reservations and declarations:

       A reservation concerning the provisions of its article 2, paragraph 1 (b), inasmuch as the Syrian Arab Republic considers that acts of resistance to foreign occupation are not included under acts of terrorism;

       Pursuant to article 2, paragraph 2 (a) of the Convention, the accession of the Syrian Arab Republic to the Convention shall not apply to the following treaties listed in the annex to the Convention until they have been adopted by the Syrian Arab Republic:

       1. The International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly on 17 December 1979;

       2. The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials, adopted at Vienna on 3 March 1980;

       3. The International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly on 15 December 1997.

       Pursuant to article 24, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Syrian Arab Republic declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of the said article;

       The accession of the Syrian Arab Republic to this Convention shall in no way imply its recognition of Israel or entail its entry into any dealings with Israel in the matters governed by the provisions thereof.

Thailand

Declarations:

       "I.  The Kingdom of Thailand declares in pursuance to Article 2 paragraph 2 (a) of the Convention that in the application of this Convention, the following treaties, which the Kingdom of Thailand is not a party to, shall not be included in the annex of this Convention.

       1.  Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 December 1973.

       2.  International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 17 December 1979.

       3.  Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 3 March 1980.

       4.  Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.

       5.  Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988.

       6.  International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997.

       II.  The Kingdom of Thailand declares, in pursuance to Article 24 paragraph 2 of the Convention, that it does not consider itself bound by Article 24 paragraph 1 of the Convention.".

Trinidad and Tobago

Declaration:

       “… pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 24 the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 24 of the Convention.”

Tunisia

Reservation:

       The Republic of Tunisia,

       In ratifying the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism adopted on 9 December 1999 by the General Assembly at its fifty-fourth session and signed by the Republic of Tunisia on 2 November 2001, declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 24, paragraph 1, of the Convention and affirms that, in the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or implementation of the Convention, there shall be no recourse to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice without its prior consent.

Türkiye

Declaration:

       "1.  The Republic of Turkey declares that the application of Paragraph 1(b) of Article (2) of the Convention does not necessarily indicate the existence of an armed conflict and the term "armed conflict", whether it is organized or not, describes a situation different from the commitment of acts that constitute the crime of terrorism within the scope of criminal law.

       2.  The Republic of Turkey declares its understanding that Paragraph 1(b) of Article (2) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, as stated in Article (21) of the said Convention, shall not prejudice the obligations of states under international law including the Charter of the United Nations, in particular the obligation of not providing financial support to terrorist and armed groups acting in the territory of other states.

       3.  Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Article 24 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Republic of Turkey declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article (24) of the said Convention."

United Arab Emirates

Reservation:

       .....subject to a reservation with respect to article 24, paragraph 1, thereof, in consequence of which the United Arab Emirates does not consider itself bound by that paragraph, which relates to arbitration.

United States of America

Reservation:

       "(a) pursuant to Article 24 (2) of the Convention, the United States of America declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 24 (1) of the Convention; and

       (b) the United States of America reserves the right specifically to agree in a particular case to follow the arbitration procedure set forth in Article 24 (1) of the Convention or any other procedure for arbitration."

Understandings:

       "(1) EXCLUSION OF LEGITIMATE ACTIVITIES AGAINST LAWFUL TARGETS. The United States of America understands that nothing in the Convention precludes any State Party to the Convention from conducting any legitimate activity against any lawful target in accordance with the law of armed conflict.

       (2) MEANING OF THE TERM "ARMED CONFLICT".  The United States of America understands that the term "armed conflict"in Article 2 (1) (b) of the Convention does not include internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature."

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

Reservations:

       Pursuant to article 24, paragraph 2, of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela hereby formulates an express reservation to the provisions of article 24, paragraph 1, of that Convention. Accordingly, it does not consider itself bound to resort to arbitration as a means of dispute settlement, and does not recognize the binding jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

       Furthermore, pursuant to article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph (a), of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, it declares that in the application of that Convention to Venezuela, the following treaties shall be deemed not to be included in the annex referred to in article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a), of that Convention until they enter into force for the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela:

       1. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 December 1973;

       2. Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, signed at Vienna on 3 March 1980;

       3. Protocol on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on 24 February 1988;

       4. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on 10 March 1988;

       5. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on 10 March 1988;

       6. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997.

Viet Nam21

Reservation and declaration:

       "Acceding to this Convention, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam makes its reservation to paragraph 1 of Article 24 of the Convention.

       The Socialist Republic of Vietnam also declares that the provisions of the Convention shall not be applied with regard to the offences set forth in the following treaties to which the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is not a party:

       - Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted at Vienna on 3 March 1980; "

Yemen22

Reservation:

       [The Government of the Republic of Yemen has ratified the Convention] … subject to reservations to the following articles:

       (a) Article 2, paragraph 1(b);

       (b) Article 24, paragraph 1.

       The accession of the Republic of Yemen to this Convention shall in no way signify recognition of Israel or entry into any relations with it.

Zimbabwe

Reservation:

       “The Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe hereby declares in terms of Article 24 (2) that it enters a reservation to Article 24 (1) which provides that where Parties fail to resolve their dispute through arbitration any Party may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice.”

Australia

2 March 2011

With regard to the reservation made by Yemen upon accession:

       “The Permanent Mission of Australia to the United Nations […] advise[s] that it has examined the reservation made by the Republic of Yemen to Article 2 (1) (b) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism 1999 upon ratifying this Convention.

       The Government of Australia considers that the reservation made by the Republic of Yemen is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, that is, the suppression of the financing of terrorism acts. The norm of customary international law embodied in Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties 1961 provides that a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

       The Government of Australia therefore objects to the reservation made by the Republic of Yemen to Article 2 (1) (b) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism 1999.

       This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between Australia and Yemen.”

Belgium

25 July 2005

With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:

       The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium has examined the reservation formulated by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, in particular the part of the reservation in which the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt declares that it "does not consider acts of national resistance in all its forms, including armed resistance against foreign occupation and aggression with a view to liberation and self-determination, as terrorist acts within the meaning of article 2, [paragraph 1], subparagraph (b), of the Convention". The Government of Belgium considers that this reservation is a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and that is contrary to its object and purpose, namely, the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, wherever and by whomever committed.

       Moreover, this declaration is contrary to article 6 of the Convention, according to which "each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature".

       The Government of Belgium recalls that, according to article 19, paragraph (c), of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

       The Government of Belgium therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Government of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Belgium and Egypt.

24 October 2005

With regard to the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:

       The Government of Belgium has examined the reservation formulated by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, in particular the part of the reservations and declarations relating to the provisions of article 2, paragraph 1 (b), of the Convention, in which the Syrian Arab Republic declares that it considers "that acts of resistance to foreign occupation are not included under acts of terrorism". The Government of Belgium considers that this reservation seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis, which is contrary to the object and purpose thereof, namely, the suppression of the financing of acts of terrorism, wherever and by whomever committed.

       Moreover, this reservation contravenes article 6 of the Convention, according to which "Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature".

       The Government of Belgium recalls that, under article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, no reservation may be formulated that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

       The Government of Belgium therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Belgium and the Syrian Arab Republic.

16 October 2013

With regard to the reservation made by Namibia upon ratification:

       The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium has examined the reservation formulated by the Government of the Republic of Namibia to article 2, paragraph 1 (b), of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, stating that an armed struggle waged by people... “for their liberation or self-determination, including armed struggle against colonialism, occupation, aggression and domination by foreign forces, shall not be considered as terrorist acts” by the Government of Namibia. The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium considers that this reservation seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and is contrary to the object and purpose thereof, namely, the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, wherever and by whomever committed.

       Moreover, this declaration is contrary to article 6 of the Convention, according to which “each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature”.

       The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium recalls that, according to article 19, paragraph (c), of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention are not permitted.

       The Government of Belgium therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Government of Namibia to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Belgium and Namibia.

30 May 2014

With regard to the interpretative declaration made by Kuwait upon accession:

       The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium has examined the interpretative declaration formulated by the Government of the State of Kuwait upon its accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (New York, 9 December 1999).

       The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium considers that this interpretative declaration in fact constitutes a reservation the aim of which is to restrict the scope of the Convention by making the implementation of the Convention subject to the domestic legislation in force in Kuwait.

       The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium considers that the aim of this reservation is to limit the scope of the Convention unilaterally and that it is contrary to the purpose and objective of the Convention, which is to suppress the financing of terrorism, wherever and by whomever committed.

       Moreover, this declaration contravenes article 6 of the Convention, which states that “'Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.”

       The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium recalls that, under article 19, paragraph (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, no reservation can be made that is incompatible with the object and purpose of this Convention.

       The Belgian Government therefore opposes the aforementioned reservation made by the Kuwaiti Government to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Belgium and Kuwait.

25 August 2020

With regard to the reservation and statement made by Lebanon upon accession:

       The Kingdom of Belgium has carefully examined the reservation formulated by the Lebanese Republic upon its accession, on 29 August 2019, to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (New York, 9 December 1999).

       The Kingdom of Belgium considers that the aim of this reservation is to limit the scope of the Convention unilaterally and that it is contrary to the purpose and objective of the Convention, which is to suppress the financing of terrorism, wherever and by whomever committed.

       Moreover, this declaration contravenes article 6 of the Convention, which states that “Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.”

       The Kingdom of Belgium recalls that, under article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State may not formulate a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty.

       The Kingdom of Belgium therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Lebanese Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Belgium and Lebanon.

Croatia

28 August 2020

With regard to the reservation and statement made by Lebanon upon accession:

       “The Republic of Croatia has carefully examined the reservation and statement made by the Lebanese Republic upon its accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

       The Republic of Croatia considers that the reservation made by the Lebanese Republic in relation to Article 2 paragraph 1 (b) of the said Convention unilaterally limits the scope of the Convention and is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, which is the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be committed.

       The Republic of Croatia would like to recall that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.

       The reservation is furthermore contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

       It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which they have decided to become Parties are respected in relation to their object and purpose. The Republic of Croatia therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Lebanese Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Croatia and the Lebanese Republic in its entirety. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without the Lebanese Republic benefiting from the aforementioned reservation.”

Denmark

30 April 2004

With regard to the declaration made by Jordan upon ratification:

       ".....the Kingdom of Denmark has examined the Declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of Jordan at the time of its ratification of the Convention.  The Government of Denmark considers the declaration made by Jordan to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and which is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place or who carries them out.

       The Government of Denmark further considers the Declaration to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to "adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

       The Government of Denmark recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

       The Government of Denmark therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of Jordan to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.  However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Denmark and Jordan."

15 September 2005

With regard to a reservation made the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:

       "The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark has examined the reservation made by Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression ofthe Financing of Terrorism upon accession to the Convention relating to Article 2 paragraph 1 (b) thereof.

       The Government of Denmark considers that the reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic unilaterally limits the scope of the Convention and that the reservation is contrary to the Convention's object and purpose, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place or who carries them out.

       The Government of Denmark further considers the reservation to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to ‘adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature'.

       The Government of Denmark recalls that, according to Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

       The Government of Denmark therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Kingdom of Denmark and the Syrian Arab Republic".   ''

With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:

       "The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark has examined the Declaration Relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the Convention. The Government of Denmark considers that the declaration made by the Government of the Ab Republic of Egypt to be a reservation that seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis and which is contrary to its object and purpose, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of where they take place or who carries them out.

       The Government of Denmark further considers the Declaration to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to ‘adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature'.

       The Government of Denmark recalls that, according to Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

       The Government of Denmark therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Kingdom of Denmark and the Arab Republic of Egypt".

7 July 2014

With regard to the interpretative declaration made by Kuwait upon accession:

       “The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by Kuwait upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

       The Government of Denmark considers that the interpretative declaration made by Kuwait in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention.

       The Government of Denmark finds that with this reservation the application of the Convention is made subject to national legislation in force in Kuwait.

       The Government of Denmark considers that with this reservation Kuwait unilaterally limits the scope of the Convention, contrary to its object and purpose of suppressing the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be committed.

       The Government of Denmark further considers the reservation to be contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to ‘adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature'.

       The Government of Denmark recalls that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

       The Government of Denmark therefore objects to the reservation of Kuwait to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Denmark and Kuwait.”

Finland

29 April 2004

With regard to the declaration made by Jordan upon ratification:

       "The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the interpretative declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of Jordan.

       The Government of Finland is of the view that the declaration amounts to a reservation as its purpose is to unilaterally limit the scope of the Convention.  The Government of Finland further considers the declaration to be in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever carried out.

       The declaration is, furthermore, contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to adopt measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature.

       The Government of Finland wishes to recall that, according to the customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the 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 and that states are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

       The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above-mentioned interpretative declaration made by the Government of Jordan to the Convention.

       This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Jordan and Finland.  The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without Jordan benefiting from its declaration."

20 July 2005

With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:

       "The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the interpretative declaration relating to paragraph 1 (b) of article 2 of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt.

       The Government of Finland is of the view that the declaration amounts to a reservation as its purpose is to unilaterally limit the scope of the Convention.  The Government of Finland further considers the declaration to be in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be carried out.

       The declaration is, furthermore, contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to adopt measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature.

       The Government of Finland wishes to recall that, according to the customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the 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 and that states are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

       The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above-mentioned interpretative declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the Convention.

       This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Arab Republic of Egypt and Finland.  The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without the Arab Republic of Egypt benefiting from its declaration."

20 July 2005

With regard to the declaration made by the Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:

       "The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the reservation relating to paragraph 1 (b) of article 2 of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic.

       The Government of Finland considers the reservation to be in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be carried out.

       The reservation is, furthermore, contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention according to which State Parties commit themselves to adopt measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature.

       The Government of Finland wishes to recall that, according to the customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the 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 and that states are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

       The Government of Finland therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to the Convention.

       This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Syrian Arab Republic and Finland.  The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without the Syrian Arab Republic benefiting from its reservation."

3 March 2011

With regard to the reservation made by Yemen upon accession:

       “The Government of Finland has carefully examined the content of the reservation relating to subparagraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Republic of Yemen upon accession.

       The reservation seeks to exclude from the scope of the Convention acts of terrorism defined in subparagraph 1 (b) of Article 2.  The Government of Finland considers the reservation to be in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be carried out.

       The Government of Finland wishes to recall that, according to Article 19 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and customary international law, a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of a treaty 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 and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

       The Government of Finland therefore objects to the reservation made by the Republic of Yemen in respect of subparagraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the Convention.  This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Yemen and Finland.  The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without the Republic of Yemen benefiting from its reservation.”

8 October 2013

With regard to the reservation made by Namibia upon ratification:

       “The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of this reservation. In view of the Government of Finland, it is in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever carried out. The reservation is, furthermore, contrary to the terms of article 6 of the Convention according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

       The Government of Finland wishes to recall that, according to customary international !aw as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty is not 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, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

       Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by Namibia to the Convention. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Finland and Namibia. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without Namibia benefitting from its reservation.”

30 May 2014

With regard to the interpretative declaration made by Kuwait upon accession:

       The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the interpretative declaration made by the State of Kuwait.

       The Government of Finland is of the view that the declaration amounts to a reservation as it unilaterally limits the scope of the Convention. The Government of Finland further considers the reservation to be in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever carried out.

       Moreover, the reservation is contrary to the terms of article 6 of the Convention according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

       The Government of Finland wishes to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty is not 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, and that States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

       Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the State of Kuwait to the Convention. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Finland and Kuwait. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without Kuwait benefitting from its reservation.

4 August 2020

With regard to the reservation and statement made by Lebanon upon accession:

       “The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the reservation and statement relating to subparagraph 1 (b) of Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism made by the Government of the Lebanese Republic upon accession.

       The Government of the Lebanese Republic has made a general reservation to sub paragraph 1 (b) of Article 2, which is central in defining offences within the meaning of the Convention. Furthermore, the Government apparently seeks to subject the application of the Convention for the Lebanese Republic to its own definition of terrorism. If this is the intention of the Government of the Lebanese Republic, the Government of Finland considers that the statement part of the Lebanese submission constitutes a reservation as well. It seems clear that the Government of the Lebanese Republic seeks to limit the scope of the Convention on a unilateral basis.

       The Government of Finland considers that reservations of this kind are in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention, which is the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be carried out.

       Furthermore, according to Article 6 of the Convention State Parties commit themselves to adopt measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of the Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

       The Government of Finland wishes to recall that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the 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 and that states are prepared to undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their obligations under the treaties.

       The Government of Finland therefore objects to the abovementioned reservation made by the Government of the Lebanese Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

       This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Finland and the Lebanese Republic. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without the Lebanese Republic benefiting from its reservation.”

Germany

With regard to the declarations made by the Jordan upon ratification:

       The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the substance of the declarations made by the Government of the Kingdom of Jordan upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, especially that part of the declarations in which the Government of the Kingdom of Jordan states that it "does not consider acts of national armed struggle and fighting foreign occupation in the exercise of people's right to self-determination as terrorist acts within the context of paragraph 1 (b) of article 2 of the Convention".  The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that this declaration in fact constitutes a reservation aimed at unilaterally limiting the scope of application of the Convention, and is thus contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, namely the suppression of the financing of terrorism, regardless of by whom and to what end it is perpetrated.

       In this respect, the declaration is furthermore in contravention of Article 6 of the Convention, under which the State Parties commit themselves to adopting "such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature".

       The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above reservation by the Government of the Kingdom of Jordan to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.  This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Jordan.

18 May 2005

With regard to the reservation made by Belgium upon ratification:

       "The Government ofthe Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism with respect to its Article 14.  With this reservation, the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium expresses that it reserves the right to refuse extradition or mutual legal assistance in respect of any offence which it considers to be politically motivated.  In the opinion of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, this reservation seeks to limit the Convention's scope of application in a way that is incompatible with the objective and purpose of the Convention.

       The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.  This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Belgium."

16 August 2005

With regard to the reservation made by Syrian Arab Republic upon accession:

       The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservation made by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon accession to the Convention relating to Article 2 paragraph 1 (b) thereof.  It is of the opinion that this reservation unilaterally limits the scope of the Convention and is thus in contradiction to the object and purpose of the Convention, in particular the object of suppressing the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be committed.

       The reservation is further contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

       The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a convention are not permissible.

       The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned reservation by the Syrian Arab Republic to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.  This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Syrian Arab Republic.

With regard to the explanatory declaration made by Egypt upon ratification:

       The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism upon ratification of the Convention relating to Article 2 paragraph 1 (b) thereof.  It is of the opinion that this declaration amounts to a reservation, since its purpose is to unilaterally limit the scope of the Convention.  The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is furthermore of the opinion that the declaration is in contradiction to the object and purpose of the Convention, in particular the object of suppressing the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be committed.

       The declaration is further contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties commit themselves to adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

       The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany recalls that, according to customary international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a convention are not permissible.

       The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned declaration by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.  This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Arab Republic of Egypt.

11 August 2006

With regard to the understanding made by Bangladesh upon accession:

       "The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration made by the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.  The People's Republic of Bangladesh has declared that its accession to the Convention shallnot be deemed to be inconsistent with its obligations under the Constitution of the country.  The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that this declaration raises questions as to which obligations the People's Republic of Bangladesh intends to give precedence to in the event of any inconsistency between the Convention and its Constitution.

       Declarations that leave it uncertain to what extent that State consents to be bound by its contractual obligations are in the opinion of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to be treated, in effect, as vague and general reservations, which are not compatible with the object and purpose of a Convention.

       The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to the above-mentioned declaration made by the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.  This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention as between the Federal Republic of Germany and the People's Republic of Bangladesh."

28 February 2011

With regard to the reservation made by Yemen upon accession:

       “The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservation made by the Republic of Yemen upon accession to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism with respect to Article 2, paragraph 1 b). The Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that the reservation of the Government of the Republic of Yemen seeks to limit the scope of application in a way that is contrary to the objective and purpose of the Convention, which aims at suppressing the financing of all terrorist acts.

       According to customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969, reservations that are not compatible with the object and purpose of a treaty shall not be permitted.

       Therefore the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany objects to the above-mentioned reservation made by the Republic of Yemen to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. The objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Yemen.”

16 October 2013

With regard to the reservation made by Namibia upon ratification:

       The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the reservation made by the Republic of Namibia upon its ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 9 December 1999.

       It is the object and purpose of the Convention, to suppress the financing of terrorist acts, including those, defined in article 2 paragraph 1 (b). It follows from article 6 of the Convention that such acts may not be justified by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature.

       The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore considers that the reservation made by the Republic of Namibia is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and is hence to be deemed impermissible.

       The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to that reservation. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Namibia.

13 June 2014

With regard to the interpretative declaration made by Kuwait upon accession:

       “The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by the State of Kuwait upon its ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 9 December 1999.

       By means of this interpretative declaration the State of Kuwait makes the application of the Convention subject to its national legislation and thereby seeks to limit the legal effects of the Convention unilaterally in its application to the State of Kuwait. Therefore, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers the interpretative declaration made by the State of Kuwait to constitute in substance a reservation within the meaning of article 2 paragraph 1 (d) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

       Moreover, it is the object and purpose of the Convention to suppress the financing of terrorist acts, including those defined in article 2 paragraph 1 (b). It follows from article 6 of the Convention that such acts may not be justified by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar nature.

       The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is therefore of the opinion that the reservation made by the State of Kuwait is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and is hence to be considered impermissible.

       The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore objects to this reservation. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the State of Kuwait.”

24 June 2020

With regard to the reservation made by Lebanon upon accession:

       “… the Federal Government has carefully examined the reservation made by the Lebanese Republic upon accession to the Convention on August 29, 2019 to Article 2(l)(b) thereof.

       It is of the opinion that this reservation unilaterally limits the scope of the Convention and is in contradiction to the object and purpose of the Convention, in particular the object of suppressing the financing of terrorist acts wherever and by whomever they may be committed.

       The reservation is further contrary to the terms of Article 6 of the Convention, according to which States Parties c