Bahrain17
Barbados
Declaration: "The Government of Barbados hereby declares that it will interpret the exemption accorded to members of a consular post by paragraph 3 of article 44 from liability to give evidence con- cerning matters connected with the exercise of their functions as relating only to Acts in respect of which consular officers and consular employees enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of the juridical or administrative authorities of the receiving state in accordance with the provisions of article 43 of the Convention."
Belize
Declaration: “The Government of Belize will interpret the exemption accorded to members of a consular post by paragraph 3 of Article 44 from liability to give evidence concerning matters connected with the exercise of their functions as relating only to acts in respect of which consular officers and consular employees enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of the judicial or administrative authorities of the receiving State in accordance with the provisions of Article 43 of the Convention. The Government of Belize further declares that it will interpret Chapter II of the Convention as applying to all career consular employees, including those employed at a consular post headed by an honorary consular officer.”
Bulgaria
Declaration: The People's Republic of Bulgaria considers that referring to the provisions of article 31, paragraph 2 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations the authorities of the receiving State may enter the consular premises in the event of fire or other disaster in the presence of a representative of the sending State or after all appropriate steps have been taken to obtain the consent of the head of the consular post.
Cuba
Czech Republic5
Denmark
Egypt18,19
Fiji
Finland
Reservation: "With regard to article 35, paragraph 1, and article 58, paragraph 1, Finland does not accord to consular posts headed by honorary consular officers the right to employ diplomatic or consular couriers and diplomatic or consular bags, or to governments, diplomatic missions and other consular posts the right to employ these means in communicating with consular posts headed by honorary consular officers, except to the extent that Finland may have consented thereto in particular cases."
Declarations: "With reference to article 22 of the Convention, the Finnish Government expressed the wish that in countries where it has been an established practice to allow nationals of the receiving State or of a third State to be appointed as Finnish honorary consuls, this practice will continue to be allowed as before. The Finnish Government also expresses the hope that countries with which Finland establishes new consular relations will follow a similar practice and will give their consent to such appointments pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 22." "With reference to article 49, paragraph 1 b, the Finnish Government wishes to add that, according to established practice, exemption cannot be granted in respect of dues or taxes levied on certain private movable property, such as shares or stock or other form of partnership in condominium or housing corporation entitling the holder of such movable property to possess and control immovable property situated in the territory of Finland and owned or otherwise legally possessed by the said condominium or housing corporation."
Germany6,7
8 April 1974
Declaration: "The Federal Republic of Germany interprets the provisions of Chapter II of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, done on 24 April 1963, as applying to all career consular personnel (consular officers, consular employees and members of the service staff), including those assigned to a consular post headed by an honorary consular officer, and that it will apply the said provisions accordingly."
Iceland
Iraq19
Italy
Kuwait
Lesotho
Malta
Reservations: “1. Article 5 (j) The Government of Malta declares that consular posts established in Malta may not execute letters rogatory or commissions to take evidence for the courts of the sending State or transmit judicial or extra-judicial documents. 2. Article 44 paragraph 3 Malta will interpret the exemption accorded to members of a consular post by paragraph 3 of article 44 from liability to give evidence concerning matters connected with the exercise of their functions as relating only to acts in respect of which consular officers and consular employees enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of judicial or administrative authorities of the receiving State in accordance with article 43 of the Convention.”
Mexico
Morocco20
Mozambique
Declaration: "As regards articles 74 and 76, the People's Republic of Mozambique considers that these provisions are incompatible with the principle that multilateral international instruments whose purpose and subject matters are of interest to the International Community as a whole should be open for universal participation. It also considers that the said articles are contrary to the principle of sovereign equality of states and deprive sovereign states from their legitimate right to participate in it."
Myanmar
Reservations on article 35, paragraph 1 and article 58, paragraphs 1 and 2: "With regard to article 35, paragraph 1 and article 58, paragraph 1, concerning the freedom of communication, the Government of the Union of Myanmar shall not accord to consular posts headed by honorary consular officers the right to employ diplomatic or consular couriers and diplomatic or consular bags, or to governments, diplomatic missions and other consular posts the right to employ these means in communicating with consular posts headed by honorary consular officers, except to the extent that the Union of Myanmar may have consented thereto in particular cases. Furthermore, with regard to facilities, privileges and immunities as provided by article 58, paragraph 2, the Government of the Union of Myanmar shall not accord exemption from registration of aliens and residence permits to consular posts headed by honorary consular officers.
Declaration on article 62: With regard to article 62, the Government of the Union of Myanmar shall not accord to consular posts headed by honorary consular officers exemption from customs duties and taxes on articles for their official use except to the extent that the Union of Myanmar may have consented thereto on the merits of each case."
Netherlands (Kingdom of the)
Declaration: "The Kingdom of the Netherlands interprets chapter II of the Convention as applying to all career consular officers and employees, including those assigned to a consular post headed by a honorary consular officer."
Norway
Oman
Qatar21
1. Article 35, paragraph 3: The Government of Qatar reserves the right to open the consular bag in the following cases: (a) Where it is evident that the consular bag is being used for unlawful purposes that are incompatible with the objectives for which immunities with respect to the bag were codified. In such a case, the diplomatic mission concerned and its Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall be notified, the bag shall be opened with the approval of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Qatar, and the items determined to be in the bag shall be confiscated in the presence of a representative of the mission to which the bag belongs; (b) Where the State of Qatar has strong reasons, supported by prima facie evidence, to believe that the consular bag has been used for unlawful purposes, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Qatar may request the consular mission concerned to open the bag in order to ascertain its contents. It shall be opened in the presence of a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and one member of the mission to which the bag belongs. Should the mission refuse the request to open the bag, then the bag must be returned to its place of origin. 2. Article 36, paragraph 1: The rights accorded in this article shall not extend to those consular employees who are engaged in administrative tasks or to the members of their families. 3. Article 49: Local personnel employed by consulates shall not be exempt from the dues and taxes stipulated in this article that are imposed by domestic laws. 4. Accession to the Convention shall under no circumstances imply recognition of Israel and shall not lead to any such dealings with it as are governed by the provisions of the Convention.
Romania
Saudi Arabia19
Reservations: 1. Approval of this Convention in no way signifies recognition of Israel and shall not lead to entry with Israel into the relations governed by this Convention. 2. The transmission of the judicial and extrajudicial documents shall be confined to civil and commercial questions and shall in all other cases be effected only by a special agreement. 3. The privileges and immunities provided for under the Convention are guaranteed only for consular staff and their spouses and minor children and shall not extend to other members of their families. 4. The privileges and immunities set forth in chapter III concerning honorary consular officers and consular posts headed by such officers shall be confined to a consular post where the honorary consul is a Saudi Arabian citizen. Consular posts headed by honorary consuls shall not be entitled to use the consular means of correspondence and consular bags referred to in article 35 of the Convention. Governments or other diplomatic missions or consular posts may not use such means of correspondence in their communications with honorary consular posts save within the limits agreed upon in particular cases.
Slovakia5
Sweden
Reservation: With regard to article 35, paragraph 1, and article 58, paragraph 1, Sweden does not accord to consular posts headed by honorary consular officers the right to employ diplomatic or consular couriers and diplomatic or consular bags, or to Governments, diplomatic missions and other consular posts the right to employ these means in communicating with consular posts headed by honorary consular officers, except to the extent that Sweden may have consented thereto in particular cases.
Declaration: "With reference to article 22 of the Convention, the Swedish Government expresses the wish that in countries where it has been an established practice to allow nationals of the receiving State or of a third State to be appointed as Swedish honorary consuls, this will continue to be allowed as before. The Swedish Government also expresses the hope that countries with which Sweden establishes new consular relations will follow a similar practice and will give their consent to such appointments pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 22."
Syrian Arab Republic19
Thailand
Interpretative declaration: "The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand declares that the term ‘competent judicial authority’ under article 41 (1) of the Convention means all competent officials under Thai criminal procedure."
United Arab Emirates19
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Upon signature: "The United Kingdom will interpret the exemption accorded to members of a consular post by paragraph 3 of article 44 from liability to give evidence concerning matters connected with the exercise of their functions as relating only to acts in respect of which consular officers and consular employees enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of the judicial or administrative authorities of the receiving State in accordance with the provisions of article 43 of the Convention."
Upon ratification:
Declaration: "The United Kingdom hereby confirms its declaration in respect of paragraph 3 of article 44 of the Convention made at the time of signature, and further declares that it will interpret Chapter II of the Convention as applying to all career consular employees, including those employed at a consular post headed by an honorary consular officer."
Viet Nam
Reservation: The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam shall not accord to the consular posts headed by the honorary consular officers the right to employ diplomatic, consular couriers, diplomatic and consular bags or messages in code or cipher; or to other governments, their diplomatic missions or consular posts headed by the honorary consular officers, unless the Government of the Socialist Re public of Vietnam may give express consent thereto in a particular case.
Yemen16,19
France
Germany7
25 July 1977
Israel
25 March 1999
With regard to the reservation made by Qatar upon accession: “The instrument of accession by the Government of Qatar to the [...] Convention contains a statement of a political character in respect ot Israel. In the view of the Government of Israel, this is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. That declaration cannot in any way affect the obligations of Qatar already existing under general International Law and under this particular Convention. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards Qatar an attitude of complete reciprocity.”
Luxembourg
Netherlands (Kingdom of the)22
5 December 1986
17 February 1998
13 December 1999
With regard to reservations made by Qatar upon accession: “The Government of Sweden Notes that the reservations concerning article 35, paragraph 3, goes beyond the rights of the receiving State not only in relation to the Convention, but also according to customary international law. In the opinion of the Government of Sweden, the protection of the consular bag constitutes an important element of the Convention and any reservation intended to allow a receiving State to open the consular bag without the approval of the sending State, or alter the use of terms codified through the Convention, is a serious qualification of the freedom of communication regime. The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the reservations to article 35, paragraph 3, of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations made by the Government of Qatar. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Sweden and Qatar. Furthermore, the Government of Sweden takes the view that article 35, paragraph 3, remains in force in relations between Sweden and Qatar by virtue of international customary law.”
United States of America
4 September 1987
The former Yugoslavia had signed and ratified the Convention on 24 April 1963 and 8 February 1965, respectively. See also note 1 under “Bosnia and Herzegovina”, “Croatia”, “former Yugoslavia”, “Slovenia”, “The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and “Yugoslavia” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
See note 2 under “China” and note 2 under “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” regarding Hong Kong under in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
The Convention was signed on 24 April 1963 on behalf of the Republic of China. See also note 1 under “China” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
Upon accession, the Government of China made the following declaration:
"The Taiwan authorities' signature on this Convention in the name of China is illegal and null and void."
See note 3 under “China” and note 1 under “Portugal” regarding Macao in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
Czechoslovakia had signed and ratified the Convention on 31 March 1964 and 13 March 1968, respectively, with a declaration. For the text of the declaration made upon signature, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 596, p. 429. See also note 1 under “Czech Republic” and note 1 under “Slovakia” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
See note 1 under “Germany” regarding Berlin (West) in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
The German Democratic Republic had acceded to the Convention on 9 September 1987 with the following reservation:
1. While acceding to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963 the German Democratic Republic reserves itself the right, in accordance with Article 73 of the Convention, to conclude agreements with other States-parties in order to supplement and complete the provisions as regards bilateral relations. This concerns, in particular, the status, privileges and immunities of independent consular missions and their members as well as the consular tasks.
2. The German Democratic Republic holds the opinion that the provisions of Articles 74 and 76 of the Convention are in contradiction to the principle according to which all states that are guided in their policy by the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter have the right to accede to conventions affecting the interests of all states.
See also note 2 under “Germany” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
See note 1 under “Montenegro” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
For the Kingdom in Europe and the Netherlands Antilles. See also notes 1 and 2 under “Netherlands” regarding Aruba/Netherlands Antilles in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
See note 1 under "New Zealand" regarding Tokelau in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.
On 16 March 1994, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Greece the following communication:
"Accession of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 does not imply its recognition on behalf of the Hellenic Republic."
See also note 1 under “Greece” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
In a communication accompanying the notification of succession, the Government of Tuvalu declared that it had decided not to succeed to the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, done at Vienna on 18 April 1961, and that pursuant to Tuvalu's declaration, dated 19 December 1978, regarding treaties applied before independence, the application of the Optional Protocol to Tuvalu should be regarded as terminated as at 1 September 1982.
In respect of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Associated States (Antigua, Dominica, Grenada, St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Lucia and St. Vincent) and territories under the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom, as well as the British Solomon Islands Protectorate (See, C.N.36.1982.TREATIES-1 of 18 February 1982).
The instrument of ratification does not maintain the reservations made on behalf of the Government of Venezuela upon signature of the Convention. On depositing the said instrument, the Permanent Representative of Venezuela to the United Nations confirmed that those reservations should be considered as withdrawn. For the text of the reservations in question, see United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 596, p. 452.
The Republic of Viet Nam had acceded to the Convention on 10 May 1973. See also note 1 under “Viet Nam” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
The formality was effected by the Yemen Arab Republic. See also note 1 under “Yemen” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
On 8 July 2021, the Government of Bahrain notified the Secretary-General of its withdrawal of the following declaration made upon accession:
"The accession by the State of Bahrain to the said Convention shall in no way constitute recognition of Israel or be a cause for the establishment of any relations of any kind therewith."
In a notification received on 18 January 1980, the Government of Egypt informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservation under paragraph 1 which related to Israel. The notification indicates 25 January 1980 as the effective date of the withdrawal. For the text of that reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 596, p. 456.
In a communication received on 16 March 1966, the Government of Israel declared that it "has noted the political character of paragraph 1 of the declaration made by the Government of the United Arab Republic [see also note 1 under “United Arab Republic” (“Egypt” and “Syria”) in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume and note 13 in this chapter]. In the view of the Government of Israel, the Convention and Protocol are not the proper place for making such political pronouncements. The Government of Israel will, in so far as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of the United Arab Republic an attitude of complete reciprocity."
Identical communications, in essence, mutatis mutandis , have been received by the Secretary-General from the Government of Israel on 16 March 1970 in respect of the declaration made upon accession by Iraq; on 12 May 1977 in respect of the declaration made upon accession by the United Arab Emirates; on 11 May 1979 in respect of the declaration made upon accession by the Syrian Arab Republic; on 1 September 1987 in respect of the reservation made upon accession by Yemen; and on 29 November 1989 in respect of the reservation made by Saudi Arabia upon accession.
In a communication received by the Secretary-General on 4 April 1977, the Government of Morocco declared that 'the reservation concerning Israel ... constituted a declaration of general policy which did not affect the legal effects of the provisions of the said Convention as far as their application in respect of the Kingdom of Morocco was concerned'.
In a communication received by the Secretary-General on 12 May 1977 the Government of Israel made the following declaration:
"The instrument deposited by the Government of Morocco contains a statement of a political character in respect to Israel. In the view of the Government of Israel, this is not the proper place for making such political pronouncements which are, moreover, in flagrant contradiction to the principles, objects and purposes of the Organization. That pronouncement by the Government of Morocco cannot in any way affect whatever obligations are binding upon Morocco under general international law or under particular treaties.
"The Government of Israel will, insofar as concerns the substance of the matter, adopt towards the Government of Morocco an attitude of complete reciprocity."
In regard to the reservations made by Qatar upon accession, the Secretary-General received communications from the following States on the dates indicated hereinafter:
Finland (17 March 2000) :
“The Government of Finland Notes that the inviolability of the official correspondence between the Sending State and the consular post can be considered one of the main objects of the Convention. As Qatar reserves the right to open a consular bag without a prior consent by the Sending State, it is the view of the Government of Finland that the above-mentioned reservation to Article 35 is in clear contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention.
According to the reservation to Article 46, para. 1, Qatar reserves the right to subject those consular employees who are engaged in administrative tasks or the members of their families to registration of aliens and residence permits. Para. 2 of Article 46 contains an exhaustive list of persons who are not exempt from the requirement of registration of aliens and residence permits. Given that the consular employees who are engaged in administrative tasks or the members of their families are covered by Article 46 para. 1, and as they are not included in the list of para. 2 of the same article, it is the opinion of the Government of Finland that the reservation is not in conformity with Article 46, nor with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of Finland therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of Qatar to the said Convention. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Qatar and Finland. The Convention will thus become operative between the two states without Qatar benefitting from the reservation".
Netherlands (17 July 2000) :
“The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservation made by the Government of Qatar in relation to article 35, paragraph 3, of the said Convention.
The Government of the Kingdome Netherlands Notes that the inviolability of the consular bag constitutes an important element of the Convention and any reservation intended to allow a receiving State to open the consular bag without the approval of the sending State is not only in contradiction with the very language of article 35, paragraph 3, of the Convention but also with customary international law.
Furthermore, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to the reservation made by the Government of Qatar in relation to Article 46, paragraph 1, of the said Convention.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands Notes that Article 46, paragraph 2, contains an exhaustive list of persons who are not exempt from the requirement of registration of aliens and residence permits. Given that the consular employees who are engaged in administrative tasks or the members of their families are covered by Article 46, paragraph 1, and are not included in the aforesaid list, the reservation concerning article 46, paragraph 1, is not in conformity with paragraph 2 of the same article, nor with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforesaid reservations made by the Government of Qatar. These objections shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Qatar."
In regard to the objection made by the Government of Netherlands 5 December 1986 to the reservation made by the Yemen Arab Repuiblic, the Secretary-General received, on 28 May 1987, from the Government of Yemen the following communication:
[The Government of Yemen] should like to make clear in this connection that it was our country's intention in making that reservation that the expression "family of a member of the consular post" should, for the purposes of enjoyment of the privileges and immunities specified in the Convention, be understood to mean the member of the consular post, his spouse and minor children only.
[The Government of Yemen] should like to make it clear that this reservation is not intended to exclude the husbands of female members of the consular posts, as was suggested in the Netherlands interpretation, since it is natural that husbands should in such cases enjoy the same privileges and immunities.