Home Page

1 Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, Twenty-first Session, Supplement No. 1 (E/2889), p. 7.

2The Convention had been signed on behalf of the Republic of Viet-Nam on 7 September 1956.  See also note 1 under “Viet Nam” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.

3On 27 April 1999, the Government of Portugal informed the Secretary-General that the Convention would apply to Macao. On that same date and subsquently on 3 December 1999, the Secretary-General received communications concerning the status of Macao from Portugal and the China (see also note 3 under “China” and note 1 under “Portugal” regarding Macao in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume).  Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Macao, China notified the Secretary-General that the Convention will also apply to the Macao Special Administrative Region.

4The Secretary-General received, on 10 June 1999, communications concerning the status of Hong Kong from China and the United Kingdom (see also note 2 under “China” and note 2 under “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” regarding Hong Kong in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume).  Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, China notified the Secretary-General that the Convention will also apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
In addition, the communication by the Government of China also contained the following declaration:
The Government of the People's Republic of China also declares that the signature and ratification by the Taiwan authorities in the name of China on 23 May 1957 and 28 May 1959 respectively of the [said Convention] are all illegal and therefore null and void.

5Signed and ratified on behalf of the Republic of China on 23 May 1957 and 28 May 1959, respectively (note 1 under “China” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume).
In communications addressed to the Secretary-General with reference to the above-mentioned signature and/or ratification, the Permanent Missions to the United Nations of Czechoslovakia, Denmark, India, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Yugoslavia stated that, since their Governments did not recognize the Nationalist Chinese authorities as the Government of China, they could not regard the said signature or ratification as valid.  The Permanent Missions of Czechoslovakia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics further stated that the sole authorities entitled to act for China and the Chinese people in the United Nations and in international relations, and to sign, ratify, accede or denounce treaties, conventions and agreements on behalf of China, were the Government of the People's Republic of China and its duly appointed representatives.
In a note addressed to the Secretary-General, the Permanent Mission of China to the United Nations stated that the Government of the Republic of China was the only legal Government which represented China and the Chinese people in international relations and that, therefore, the allegations made in the above-mentioned communica tions as to the lack of validity of the signature or ratification in question had no legal foundation whatever.

6The former Yugoslavia had signed and ratified the Convention on 7 September 1956 and 20 May 1958, 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.

7Czechoslovakia had signed and ratified the Convention on 7 September 1956 and 13 June 1958, respectively. See also note 1 under “Czech Republic” and note 1 under “Slovakia” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.

8See note 1 under “Germany” regarding Berlin (West) in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.

9The German Democratic Republic had acceded to the Convention on 16 July 1974.  See also note 2 under “Germany” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.

10See note 1 under "Montenegro" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.

11See note 1 under “Netherlands” regarding Aruba/Netherlands Antilles in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.

12See note 1 under “New Zealand” regarding Tokelau in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.

13Accession by the United Arab Republic. See note 1 under “United Arab Republic (Egypt/Syria)” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.

14On 8 July 2021, the Government of Bahrain notified the Secretary-General of its withdrawal of the following reservation 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.”

15On 3 October 1983, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Argentina the following objection:

[The Government of Argentina makes a] formal objection to the [declaration] of territorial extension issued by the United Kingdom with regard to the Malvinas Islands (and dependencies), which that country is illegally occupying and refers to as the "Falkland Islands".

The Argentine Republic rejects and considers null and void the [said declaration] of territorial extension.

With reference to the above-mentioned objection, the Secretary-General received, on 28 February 1985, from the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the following declaration:

"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have no doubt as to their right, by notification to the Depositary under the relevant provisions of the above-mentioned Convention, to extend the application of the Convention in question to the Falkland Islands or to the Falkland Islands  Dependencies, as the case may be.

For this reason alone, the Government of the United Kingdom are unable to regard the Argentine [communication] under reference as having any legal effect."

16See note 1 under “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.