معلومات الدخول المتعلقة بالاتفاقات البيئية المتعددة الأطراف

The former Yugoslavia had signed and ratified the Convention on 10 December 1982 and 5 May 1986, respectively, with the following declaration:

"1. Proceeding from the right that State Parties have on the basis of article 310 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia considers that a coastal State may, by its laws and regulations, subject the passage of foreign warships to the requirement of previous notification to the respective coastal State and limit the number of ships simultaneously passing, on the basis of the international customary law and in compliance with the right of innocent passage (articles 17-32 of the Convention).

2. The Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia also considers that it may, on the basis of article 38, para. 1, and article 45, para. 1 (a) of the Convention, determine by its laws and regulations which of the straits used for international navigation in the territorial sea of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will retain the regime of innocent passage, as appropriate.

3. Due to the fact that the provisions of the Convention relating to the contiguous zone (article 33) do not provide rules on the delimitation of the contiguous zone between States with opposite or adjacent coasts, the Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia considers that the principles of the customary international law, codified in article 24, para. 3, of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, signed in Geneva on 29 April 1958, will apply to the delimitation of the contiguous zone between the Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea."

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.

The German Democratic Republic had signed the Convention on 10 December 1982 with the following declarations:

[1] "The German Democratic Republic declares that it accepts an arbitral tribunal as provided for in article 287, paragraph 1 (c), which is to be constituted in accordance with Annex VII, as competent for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention, which cannot be settled by the States involved by recourse to other peaceful means of dispute settlement agreed between them.

The German Democratic Republic further declares that it accepts a special arbitral tribunal as provided for in article 287, paragraph 1 (d), which is to be constituted in accordance with Annex VIII, as competent for the settlement of disputes concerning the in terpretation or application of articles of this Convention relating to fisheries, the protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research and navigation, including pollution from ships and through dumping.

The German Democratic Republic recognizes the competence, provided for in article 292 of the Convention, of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in matters relating to the prompt release of vessels and crews.

The German Democratic Republic declares, in accordance with article 298 of the Convention, that it does not accept any compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions

- -in disputes relating to sea boundary delimitations,

- -in disputes relating to military activities and

- -in disputes concerning which the United Nations Security Council exercises the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations."

[2] "The German Democratic Republic reserves the right, in connection with the ratification of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, to make declarations and statements pursuant to article 310 of the Convention and to present its views on declarations and statements made by other States when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention."

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.

13 February 2009

For the Netherlands Antilles.

23 July 2014

Territorial Application in respect of Aruba with:

Declaration

“A. Declaration in respect of article 287 of the Convention.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby declares that, having regard to Article 287 of the Convention, it accepts the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention with States Parties to the Convention which have likewise accepted the said jurisdiction.

Objections

B. Objections

The Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to any declaration or statement excluding or modifying the legal effect of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

This is particularly the case with regard to the following matters:

I. Innocent passage in the territorial sea

The Convention permits innocent passage in the territorial sea for all ships, including foreign warships, nuclear-powered ships and ships carrying nuclear or hazardous waste, without any prior consent or notification, and with due observance of special precautionary measures established for such ships by international agreements.

II. Exclusive economic zone

1. Passage through the Exclusive Economic Zone

Nothing in the Convention restricts the freedom of navigation of nuclear-powered ships or ships carrying nuclear or hazardous waste in the Exclusive Economic Zone, provided such navigation is in accordance with the applicable rules of international law. In particular, the Convention does not authorize the coastal state to make the navigation of such ships in the EEZ dependent on prior consent or notification.

2. Military exercises in the Exclusive Economic Zone

The Convention does not authorize the coastal state to prohibit military exercises in its EEZ. The rights of the coastal state in its EEZ are listed in article 56 of the Convention, and no such authority is given to the coastal state. In the EEZ all states enjoy the freedoms of navigation and overflight, subject to the relevant provisions of the Convention.

3. Installations in the Exclusive Economic Zone

The coastal state enjoys the right to authorize, operate and use installations and structures in the EEZ for economic purposes. Jurisdiction over the establishment and use of installations and structures is limited to the rules contained in article 56, paragraph 1, and is subject to the obligations contained in article 56, paragraph 2, article 58 and article 60 of the Convention.

4. Residual rights

The coastal state does not enjoy residual rights in the EEZ. The rights of the coastal state in its EEZ are listed in article 56 of the Convention, and can not be extended unilaterally.

III. Passage through straits

Routes and sealanes through straits shall be established in accordance with the rules provided for in the Convention. Considerations with respect to domestic security and public order shall not affect navigation in straits used for international navigation. The application of other international instruments to straits is subject to the relevant articles of the Convention.

IV. Archipelagic States

The application of Part IV of the Convention is limited to a state constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos, and may include other islands. Claims to archipelagic status in contravention of article 46 are not acceptable.

The status of archipelagic state, and the rights and obligations deriving from each status, can only be invoked under the conditions of part IV of the Convention.

V. Fisheries

The Convention confers no jurisdiction on the coastal state with respect to the exploitation, conservation and management of living marine resources other than sedentary species beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory species should, in accordance with articles 63 [and] 64 of the Convention, take place on the basis of international cooperation in appropriate subregional and regional organizations.

VI. Underwater cultural heritage

Jurisdiction over objects of an archaeological and historical nature found at sea is limited to articles 149 and 303 of the Convention.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands does however consider that there may be a need to further develop, in international cooperation, the international law on the protection of underwater cultural heritage.

VII. Baselines and delimitation

A claim that the drawing of baselines of the delimitation of maritime zones is in accordance with the Convention will only be acceptable if such lines and zones have been established in accordance with the Convention.

VIII. National legislation

As a general rule of international law, as stated in articles 27 and 46 of the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties, states may not rely on national legislation as a justification for a failure to implement the Convention.

IX. Territorial claims

Ratification by the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not imply recognition or acceptance of any territorial claim made by a State Party to the Convention.

X. Article 301

Article 301 must be interpreted, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as applying to the territory and the territorial sea of a coastal state.

XI. General declaration

The Kingdom of the Netherlands reserves its right to make further declarations relative to the Convention and to the Agreement, in response to future declarations and statements.”

Czechoslovakia had signed the Convention on 10 December 1982. On 29 May 1985, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Czechoslovakia the following objection:

"[The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic] wishes to draw the Secretary-General's attention to the concern of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic about the fact that certain States made upon signature of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea declarations which are incompatible with the Convention and which, if reaffirmed upon ratification of the Convention by those States, would constitute a violation of the obligations to be assumed by them under the Convention. Such approach would lead to a breach of the universality of the obligations embodied in the Convention, to the disruption of the legal regime established thereunder and, in the long run, even to the undermining of the Convention as such.

A concrete example of such declaration as referred to above is the understanding made upon signature and reaffirmed upon ratification of the Convention by the Philippines which was communicated to Member States by notification [. . .] dated 22 May 1984.

The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic considers that this understanding of the Philippines

-- is inconsistent with Article 309 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea because it contains, in essence, reservations to the provisions of the Convention;

-- contravenes Article 310 of the Convention which stipulates that declarations can be made by States upon signature or ratification of or accession to the Convention only provided that they `do not purport to exclude or to modify the legal effect of the provisions of this Convention';

-- indicates that in spite of having ratified the Convention, the Philippines intends to follow its national laws and previous agreements rather than the obligations under the Convention, not only taking no account of whether those laws and agreements are in harmony with the Convention but even, as proved in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Philippine understanding, deliberately contravening the obligations set forth therein.

Given the above-mentioned circumstances, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic cannot recognize the above-mentioned understanding of the Philippines as having any legal effect.

In view of the significance of the matter, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic considers it necessary that the problem of such declarations made upon signature or ratification of the Convention which endanger the universality of the Convention and the unified mode of its implementation be dealt with by the Secretary-General in his capacity as depositary of the Convention and that the Member States of the United Nations be informed thereof."

See also note 1 under “Czech Republic” and note 1 under “Slovakia” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.

On 10 September 2008, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Spain the following communication with regard to the declaration made by Morocco upon ratification:

Spain would like to make the following declarations in respect of the declaration made by Morocco on 31 May 2007 upon its ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea:

(i) The autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla, the Peñón de Alhucemas, the Peñón Vélez de la Gomera, and the Chafarinas Islands are an integral part of the Kingdom of Spain, which exercises full and total sovereignty over said territories, as well as their marine areas, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

(ii) The Moroccan laws and regulations on marine areas are not opposable to Spain except insofar as they are compatible with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, nor do they have any effect on the sovereign rights or jurisdiction that Spain exercises, or may exercise, over its own marine areas, as defined in accordance with the Convention and other applicable international provisions.

Upon depositing its instrument of accession, the Government of the United Kingdom also stated the following:

“ Extent

[This] instrument of accession [..] extend[s] to:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The Bailiwick of Jersey

The Bailiwick of Guernsey

The Isle of Man

Anguilla

Bermuda

British Antarctic Territory

British Indian Ocean Territory

British Virgin Islands

The Cayman Islands

Falkland Islands

Gibraltar

Montserrat

Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands

St. Helena and Dependencies

South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands

Turks and Caicos Islands.”