Algeria
Reservation: The Government of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 23, paragraph 1, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. The Government of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria declares that it deems it essential in all cases that all parties to any dispute are in agreement over referring the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.
Argentina
Reservation made upon signature: Pursuant to article 23, paragraph 2, the Republic of Argentina declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 23 and, as a consequence, does not recognize either the compulsory arbitration or the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
Declaration: Pursuant to article 23, paragraph 2, the Republic of Argentina declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 23 and, as a consequence, does not recognize either the compulsory arbitration or the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. With regard to article 9, paragraph 3, the Argentine Republic declares that the jurisdictional scope of its criminal law is set out in article 1 of the Argentine Criminal Code (Act No. 11.729), which provides as follows: ‘This Code shall apply in respect of: 1. Offences committed or whose effects may be produced in the territory of the Argentine Nation or in places subject to its jurisdiction; 2. Offences committed abroad by agents or employees of the Argentine authorities in the performance of their duties.’ Accordingly, the Argentine Republic shall exercise jurisdiction over the offences covered by article 9, paragraph 2, subparagraph (d), and over the offences covered by paragraph 2, subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c), whenever they produce effects in the territory of the Argentine Republic or in places subject to its jurisdiction, or when committed abroad by agents or employees of the Argentine authorities in the performance of their duties. With respect to the offences mentioned in article 9, paragraph 2, subparagraph (e), jurisdiction over them shall be exercised in accordance with the legal provisions in force in the Argentine Republic. Account shall be taken in this regard of article 199 of the Argentine Aviation Code, which provides as follows: ‘Incidents caused, acts performed and offences committed in an Argentine private aircraft over Argentine territory, its jurisdictional waters or where no State exercises sovereignty, shall be governed by thelaws of the Argentine Nation and shall be tried by its courts. The Argentine courts shall also have jurisdiction and the laws of the Argentine Nation shall also apply in the case of incidents caused, acts performed or offences committed on board an Argentine private aircraft over foreign territory, where a legitimate interest of the Argentine State or persons resident therein is harmed or where the first landing subsequent to the incident, act or offence is made in the Argentine Republic.’
Azerbaijan
Reservation made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: "In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 23, the Republic of Azerbaijan declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Convention."
Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification: "The Republic of Azerbaijan declares that it will be unable to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the Convention in its territories occupied by the Republic of Armenia until these territories are liberated from that occupation."
Bahrain
Reservation: The Kingdom of Bahrain does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 23, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
Belgium
Declaration: The Kingdom of Belgium declares that only nuclear materials and facilities containing nuclear materials are covered by article 18, paragraph 1(b) and (c).
Canada
Declaration: “The Government of Canada considers the application of Article 2 (4) (c) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism to be limited to acts committed in furthering a conspiracy of two or more persons to commit a specific criminal offence contemplated in paragraph 1, 2, or 3 of Article 2.”
China
Declaration: The People's Republic of China does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 23 of the Convention.
Costa Rica
Interpretative Declarations: Article 2 of the Act approving the Convention stipulates that "The Government of the Republic of Costa Rica declares that it shall interpret, in respect of article 11, paragraph 1, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, that if extradition is not appropriate and the case is found to be time-barred, the acts cannot be tried in national territory." Article 3 of the Act approving the Convention establishes that "The Government of Costa Rica affirms that article 15 of the Convention, in accordance with article 31 of the Political Constitution, shall be interpreted to mean that the State does not relinquish its power to classify [an offence] in the specific case when a request for extradition is reviewed."
Cuba
Reservation: The Republic of Cuba declares, pursuant to article 23, paragraph 2, that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article with respect to the settlement of disputes arising between States Parties which, in its view, should be resolved through amicable negotiations, and it also declares that it does not recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
Declarations: The Republic of Cuba declares that nothing in article 4, paragraph 2, can be construed as encouraging or condoning the use or threat of use of force in international relations which should, in all circumstances, be strictly governed by the principles of international law and the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Cuba also holds the view that the relations between States should be based on the provisions of General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV). Furthermore, State terrorism has historically been a fundamental concern for Cuba, which believes that its total eradication through mutual respect, friendly relations and cooperation among States, and full respect for the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, self-determination and non-interference in internal affairs should constitute a priority for the international community. Therefore, Cuba is firmly of the view that the improper use of the armed forces of a State to commit aggression against another State is not countenanced by this Convention, the purpose of which is specifically to combat one of the most deleterious scourges facing the modern world. To condone acts of aggression would effectively mean to condone breaches of international law and the Charter, and to set off conflicts with unpredicatable consequences that would undermine the necessary cohesion of the international community in the fight against the real scourges afflicting the world. Moreover, it is the understanding of the Republic of Cuba that the full extent of the provisions of this Convention will apply to the activities conducted by the armed forces of a state against another in the absence of an armed conflict between the two. Lastly, Cuba wishes to place on record that a United States naval base is located, against the will of the Cuban people and Government, in the province of Guantanamo, a portion of Cuban territory over which the Cuban State does not exercise its rightful jurisdiction because of the unlawful occupation of such portion of its territory by the United States of America. Consequently, the Government of Cuba assumes no responsibility for that portion of its territory for the purposes of the Treaty, since it does not know whether the United States of America has installed, possesses, maintains or intends to install nuclear material, including nuclear weapons, on that portion of unlawfully occupied Cuban territory.
Egypt7
Reservation made upon signature: 1. The Arab Republic of Egypt declares its commitment to article 4 of the Convention provided that the armed forces of a State do not violate the rules and principles of international law in the exercise of their duties under that article, and also provided that the article is not interpreted as excluding the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict from the scope of application of this Convention on the grounds that the activities of States - under certain legal circumstances - are not considered terrorist activities. 2. The Arab Republic of Egypt declares that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of article 23 of the Convention.
Georgia
Reservation: “… the Government of Georgia makes reservation that it does not consider itself bound by article 23, paragraph 1 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism to submit to arbitration disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention at the request of one of the State Party. ... "
India
Reservation: "India does not consider itself bound by the provision of Paragraph (1) of Article 23."
Indonesia
Declaration: “The Government of the Republic of Indonesia declares that Article 4 of this Convention shall not be construed as supporting, encouraging, condoning, justifying or legitimizing the use or the threat of use of nuclear weapons for any means or purposes.”
Reservation: “The Government of the Republic of Indonesia does not consider itself bound by the provision of Article 23 paragraph (1) of the Convention and takes the position that any dispute relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention may only be submitted to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice with the consent of all the Parties to the dispute.”
Jamaica8
6 February 2015
Reservation: “The Government of Jamaica does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.”
Jordan
Reservation "The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article 23, paragraph 1, of the Convention."
Kuwait
Reservation: Kuwait shall not be bound by the provisions set out in article 23, paragraph 1, concerning submission of disputes to arbitration or to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
Malta
Declaration and reservation: “In terms of article 9, Malta will exercise jurisdiction in terms of paragraph 2 (a), (b), (d) and (e). The Government of Malta shall not be bound by the provision of paragraph 1 of article 23 of this Convention.”
Morocco
Reservation The Kingdom of Morocco does not consider itself bound by article 23, paragraph 1, which provides that any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation or by other means may be referred to the International Court of Justice by application of one of the concerned parties. The Kingdom of Morocco declares that a dispute may be referred to the International Court of Justice only by agreement of all concerned parties on a case-by-case basis.
Qatar
Upon signature: Rerservation : “... with reservation on the provisions of paragraph (1) of article 23 of the Convention.”
Reservation: The State of Qatar does not consider itself bound by article 23, paragraph 1 of the Convention concerning referral to the International Court of Justice.
Republic of Moldova
Upon ratification Declaration: “Until the full re-establishment of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova, the provisions of the Convention will be applied only on the territory controlled effectively by the authorities of the Republic of Moldova.”
Russian Federation
Declaration: The position of the Russian Federation is that the provisions of article 16 of the Convention should be implemented in such a way as to ensure the inevitability of responsibility for the commission of offences falling within the scope of the Convention, without detriment to the effectiveness of international cooperation on the questions of extradition and legal assistance.
Saudi Arabia
Reservation: The Kingdom hereby declares that it does not consider itself bound by article 23, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
Singapore
Reservation: "Pursuant to Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Republic of Singapore declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article 23, paragraph 1 of the Convention."
Declarations: "1. The Republic of Singapore understands that the term 'armed conflict' in Article 4, paragraph 2, 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. 2. The Republic of Singapore understands that, under Article 4 and Article 1, paragraph 6, the Convention does not apply to: a. the military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties; b. civilians who direct or organise the official activities of military forces of a state; or c. civilians acting in support of the official activities of the military forces of a state, if the civilians are under the formal command, control, and responsibility of those forces. 3. The Republic of Singapore understands Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Convention to include the right of competent authorities to decide not to submit any particular case for prosecution before the judicial authorities if the alleged offender is dealt with under national security and preventive detention laws.”
St. Lucia
Declarations: “1. In accordance with Article 23 paragraph 2 of the Convention, the Government of Saint Lucia does not consider itself bound by the arbitration procedures established under Article 13 paragraph 1 of the Convention. 2. That the explicit expressed consent of the Government of Saint Lucia would be necessary for any submission of any dispute to arbitration o[r] to the International Court of Justice.”
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Reservation: “…, in accordance with Article 23, paragraph 2 of that Convention, the Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines declares that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines does not consider itself bound by Article 23, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines considers that for the submission of any dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice in terms of Article 23, paragraph 1, the consent of all parties to the dispute is required in each case.”
Tajikistan
Reservation: “[The] Republic of Tajikistan does not accept the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 23 of this Convention”.
Thailand
Declaration made upon ratification: “The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand […] declares that, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the Convention, the Kingdom of Thailand does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of the same Article.”
Türkiye9
Upon signature: Declaration: "It is the understanding of the Republic of Turkey that the term international humanitarian law in Article 4(2) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, refers to the legal instruments to which Turkey is already party to. The Article should not be interpreted as giving a different status to the armed forces and groups other than the armed forces of a state as currently understood and applied in international law and thereby creating new obligations for the Republic of Turkey." Reservation: "Pursuant to Article 23 (2) of the Convention, the Government of the Republic of Turkey declares that it does not consider itself bound by article 23(1) of the Convention."
Upon ratification:
Declaration: It is the understanding of the Republic of Turkey that the term international humanitarian law in article 4(2) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, refers to the legal instruments to which Turkey is already party to. The Article should not be interpreted as giving a different status to the armed forces and groups other than the armed forces of a state as currently understood and applied in international law and thereby creating new obligations for Turkey.
Reservation: Pursuant to Article 23(2) of the Convention, the Government of the Republic of Turkey declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 23(1) of the Convention.
United Arab Emirates
United States of America
Reservation “Pursuant to Article 23(2) of the Convention, the United States of America declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 23(1) of the Convention.”
Understandings “(1) The United States of America understands that the term “armed conflict” in Article 4 of the Convention does not include situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature. (2) The United States of America understands that the term “international humanitarian law” in Article 4 of the Convention has the same substantive meaning as the law of war. (3) The United States of America understands that, pursuant to Article 4 and Article 1(6), the Convention does not apply to: a) the military forces of a State, which are the armed forces of a State organized, trained, and equipped under its internal law for the primary purpose of national defense or security, in the exercise of their official duties; (b) civilians who direct or organize the official activities of military forces of a State; or (c) civilians acting in support of the official activities of the military forces of a State, if the civilians are under the formal command, control, and responsibility of those forces. (4) The United States of America understands that current United States law with respect to the rights of persons in custody and persons charged with crimes fulfills the requirement in Article 12 of the Convention and, accordingly, the United States does not intend to enact new legislation to fulfill its obligations under this Article.”
Uzbekistan
Declaration: "Article 16 of the Convention: The Republic of Uzbekistan proceeds from the fact that the provisions of Article 16 of the Convention should be applied in such a way as to ensure the inevitability of responsibility for the crimes falling within the scope of the Convention, without prejudice to the effectiveness of international cooperation on extradition and legal assistance; Paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the Convention: The Republic of Uzbekistan declares that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 23 of the Convention.”
Viet Nam
Declaration: “1. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam shall not take this Convention as the direct legal basis for extradition. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam shall carry out extradition in accordance with the provisions of its domestic laws and regulations, on the basis of treaties on extradition and the principle of reciprocity. 2. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Convention;”
Yemen
Reservation: … We declare our final approval and ratification of the abovementioned Convention, as well as the full compliance with all its provisions; with the reservation to paragraph (1) of Article (23) of the convention…
Armenia
Objection to the declaration made by Azerbaijan upon ratification: “The Republic of Azerbaijan made a declaration on September 15, 2005 with regard to the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism at the time of signature and confirmed when depositing the instrument of ratification. Given that the Republic of Armenia declares: The Republic of Azerbaijan deliberately misrepresents the essence of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, with respect to cause and effect of the conflict. The conflict arose due to the policy of ethnic cleansing by the Republic of Azerbaijan followed by the massive military aggression against the self-determined Nagorno-Karabakh Republic - with the aim to repress the free will of the Nagorno-Karabakh population. As a result, the Republic of Azerbaijan has occupied several territories of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.”
Czech Republic
23 September 2013
With regard to the declaration made by Turkey upon ratification: “The Government of the Czech Republic has examined the declaration made by the Republic of Turkey upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, in which the Republic of Turkey declares its understanding that the term international humanitarian law in article 4(2) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism refers to the legal instruments to which Turkey is already party to. In reaction to this declaration, the Czech Republic would like to express its understanding that the term international humanitarian law in article 4(2) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism refers to the relevant legal instruments binding on the States Parties to the Convention, as well as to the customary international humanitarian law, which shall continue to apply as such among all States Parties to the Convention.”
Finland
20 September 2013
With regard to the declaration made by Turkey upon ratification: “The Government of Finland has carefully examined the contents of the declaration and is of the view that this declaration amounts to a reservation as it seems to modify the obligations of the Republic of Turkey under article 4(2) of the Convention. According to the declaration, the term international humanitarian law is interpreted as only referring to the legal instruments which Turkey is already party to. This interpretation unilaterally alters the definition of international humanitarian law by excluding customary international law from the scope of international humanitarian law. The declaration also contradicts article 4(1) of the Convention. 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. In its present formulation, the reservation relating to article 4(2) is in contradiction with the object and purpose of the Convention. Therefore, the Government of Finland objects to the reservation relating to article 4(2) made by the Republic of Turkey. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between Finland and the Republic of Turkey. The Convention will thus become operative between the two States without the Republic of Turkey benefitting from its reservation.”
Netherlands (Kingdom of the)
28 February 2014
With regard to the reservation made by Costa Rica upon ratification “The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has carefully examined the interpretative declaration made by Costa Rica upon ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the interpretative declaration made by Costa Rica regarding Article 15 of the Convention in substance constitutes a reservation limiting the scope of the Convention. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that with this reservation the application of the Convention is made subject to national legislation in force in Costa Rica. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that reservations of this kind must be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and would 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 Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the reservation of Costa Rica to Article 15 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Costa Rica.”
Belarus
Côte d'Ivoire
25 October 2012
France
Germany
Hungary
Notification: In accordance with article 9, paragraph 3, the State of Kuwait declares that it has jurisdiction over the offences set out in article 9, paragraph 2 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).
Latvia
Nigeria
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
17 February 2010
Sweden
Switzerland
9 February 2012, the Investigation Committee of the Republic of Belarus was designated as a competent authority and liaison point responsible for sending and receiving the information referred to in the Article 7 of the International Convention in addition to prior designated competent authorities of the Republic of Belarus.
The Convention shall apply to the Macao Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and, unless otherwise notified, shall not apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.
By a commmunication received on 15 July 2016, the Government of Denmark informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the declaration, made upon ratification, regarding the territorial exclusion in respect of Greenland.
Upon ratification on 21 March 2007, Denmark had notified the Secretary-General of the following: With a territorial exclusion in regard to the Faroe Islands and Greenland.
See note 1 under "Montenegro" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.
With a territorial exclusion. See C.N.102.2016.TREATIES-XVIII.15 of 18 March 2016.
On 20 October 2015, the Government of Ukraine made a communication. The text can be found here: C.N.615.2015.TREATIES-XVIII.15 of 20 October 2015.
On 4 March 2022, the Government of Ukraine made a communication. The text can be found here: C.N.72.2022.TREATIES-XVIII.15 of 8 March 2022.
The Secretary-General received from the following States, on the date indicated hereinafter, a communication with regard to the reservation made by Egypt upon signature:
Latvia (6 December 2006):
"The Government of the Republic of Latvia has examined the reservation made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to the International Convention on the Suppression of the Acts of Nuclear Terrorism upon signature to the Convention regarding Article 4.
The Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that this reservation contradicts to the objectives and purposes of the International Convention to suppress the acts of nuclear terrorism wherever and by whomsoever they may be carried out.
The Government of the Republic of Latvia recalls that customary international law as codified by Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular Article 19 (c), sets out that reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty are not permissible.
The Government of the Republic of Latvia therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation made by 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 between the Republic of Latvia and the Arab Republic of Egypt. Thus, the International Convention will become operative without the Arab Republic of Egypt benefiting from its reservation.
Italy (27 March 2007):
"The Permanent Mission of Italy has the honor to refer to the reservation made by the Arab Republic of Egypt to article 4 of the Convention, which would extend the application of the Convention to include the armed forces of a State when they "violate the rules and principles of international law in the exercise of their duties." Such activities would otherwise be excluded from the Convention by article 4. It is the opinion of Italy that Egypt cannot unilaterally extend the obligations of the other StatesParties under the Convention, without their express consent, beyond those set out in the Convention.
Italy wishes to make clear that it does not consent to this expansion of the scope of application of the Convention, and that it does not consider the Egyptian declaration to have any effect on the obligations of Italy under the Convention or on the application of the Convention to the armed forces of Italy.
Italy thus regards the unilateral declaration made by the Government of Egypt as applying only to the obligations of Egypt under the Convention and only to the armed forces of Egypt."
Germany (8 February 2008):
“… [the Federal Republic of Germany makes] the following declaration … with regard to the reservation made by the Arab Republic of Egypt upon signature:
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has carefully examined the declaration, described as a reservation, relating to article 4 [“paragraph 2 and paragraph 3”] of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt at the time of its ratification of the Convention.
In this declaration the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt declares its commitment to article 4 of the Convention provided that the armed forces of a State do not violate the rules and principles of international law in the exercise of their duties under that article, and also provided that the article is not interpreted as excluding the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict from the scope of application of this Convention on the grounds that the activities of States – under certain legal circumstances – are not considered terrorist activities.
However, article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention states that the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law, as well as the activities undertaken by military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties, inasmuch as they are governed by other rules of international law, are not governed by this Convention. Moreover, and according to article 4, paragraph 3, the provisions of article 4, paragraph 2, shall not be interpreted as condoning or making lawful otherwise unlawful acts, or precluding prosecution under other laws. The declaration by the Arab Republic of Egypt thus aims to broaden the scope of the Convention.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt is only entitled to make such a declaration unilaterally for its own armed forces, and it interprets the declaration as having binding effect only on armed forces of the Arab Republic of Egypt. In the view of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, such a unilateral declaration cannot apply to the armed forces of other States Parties without their express consent. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore declares that it does not consent to the Egyptian declaration as so interpreted with regard to any armed forces other than those of the Arab Republic of Egypt, and in particular does not recognize any applicability of the Convention to the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Germany.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany also emphasizes that the declaration by the Arab Republic of Egypt has no effect whatsoever on the Federal Republic of Germany’s obligations as State Party to the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism or on the Convention’s applicability to armed forces of the Federal Republic of Germany.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany regards the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism as entering into force between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Arab Republic of Egypt subject to a unilateral declaration made by the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt, which relates exclusively to the obligations of the Arab Republic of Egypt and to the armed forces of the Arab Republic of Egypt.”
By 6 February 2015, i.e., within a period of one year from the date of depositary notification C.N.51.2014.TREATIES-XVIII-15 of 6 February 2014, no objection had been notified to the Secretary-General. Consequently, in keeping with the depositary practice followed in similar cases, the Secretary-General received the reservation in question for deposit.
The Secretary-General received from the following State, on the date indicated hereinafter, a communication with regard to the declaration and reservation made by Turkey upon signature :
Latvia (22 December 2006):
"The Government of the Republic of Latvia has examined the reservation and declaration made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Convention on the Suppression of the Acts of Nuclear Terrorism upon signature to the Convention regarding Article 4 (2).
The Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that this declaration is in fact unilateral act that is deemed to limit the scope of the Convention and therefore should be regarded as reservation. Thus, this reservation contradicts to the objectives and purposes of the Convention on the suppression the commitment of the acts of nuclear terrorism wherever and by whomsoever they may be carried out.
Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Latvia considers that the reservation named as a declaration conflicts with the terms of Article 4 (1).
Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Latvia is of the opinion that this declaration reservation contradicts to the objectives and purposes of the International Convention to suppress the acts of nuclear terrorism wherever and by whomsoever they might be carried out.
The Government of the Republic of Latvia therefore objects to the aforesaid reservation named as declaration made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Convention on the Suppression of the Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.
However, this objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Turkey. Thus, the International Convention will become operative without the Republic of Turkey benefiting from its reservation."